PDA

View Full Version : I have the new book and I can say this...



Petey
17-06-2010, 05:54
it is big enough to be used in home defense... man is it ever a big book.

So, the extra attacks power is not clearly enough written. I'm not sure if it implies that having an extra hand weapon and frenzy don't stack (for number of attacks) or if it doesn't. My inclination from the way it looks is that they don't stack... which I don't like.

Also, it's no longer easy to shoot large targets. Which is weird, but I don't think it ll matter much to game play.

I can't say I'm impressed with the quality of the writing in the book, it seems a bit... pandering to a younger crowd. Even more than 40k. Though the book itself is beautiful (as if there was any doubt it would be) and has a lot of beautiful glossies of tables that I'd mug someone to own.

Hellebore
17-06-2010, 06:03
It's a real shame the background is going that way, relying more on image than substance (and GW has relied on image for a while so that's saying something).

I remember I got into Warhammer at 12 precisely because of the darker themes and more adult tone. Given the current super violence saturated child market I really can't see why GW thinks they need to market their stuff in a more 'censored' way. :(

Hellebore

Petey
17-06-2010, 06:13
You echo me Hellebore.

Trains_Get_Robbed
17-06-2010, 06:14
Yes in a world which the average kid grows up playing Cod like its going out of style I'm suprised at all the pictures, I compared the 8th to the 7th at our local store for some rule differentiating, much more pictures. As if the kids of today need less darkness. :rolleyes:

strewart
17-06-2010, 06:21
Wait how have you got a copy of it already?

decker_cky
17-06-2010, 06:30
I think he was talking about the language used in the rules. I didn't find it all that much different than 5th and 6th to be honest. I think it's actually going to be a little more complicated to start out as there's a fair bit of page flipping for some rules (X special rule provides Y special rule, magic phase and spells being split, etc..).

Petey
17-06-2010, 07:02
I m running the events at my local store for the 8th release strewart.

Darnok
17-06-2010, 07:56
Thread moved, being general discussion.


Darnok [=I=]

ChaosVC
17-06-2010, 08:36
Well, GW writing have rarely been fantastic, its the artwork that I am really after. The rules are "haha" to me anyway. Yes I am superficial, I love big, colourful and pretty books to wack people with.

destroyerlord
17-06-2010, 08:45
I was of the understanding that rules that are written out more carefully were done so to try to prevent rules disputes by ensuring there is sufficient clarity, rather than aiming for younger audiences...they get all the young kids with the models anyway...

Eternus
17-06-2010, 12:50
Just wanted to ask the OP, is this the actual full book you have? If so, well done, and what is the background section like? Has the timeline advanced at all? Has the Storm of Chaos been mentioned or has it finally officially been erased from the histories?

Cheers pal.

Frankly
17-06-2010, 12:56
Well..... Yes I am superficial, I love big, colourful and pretty books to wack people with.

I'm hearing you on this one.

The only way I'd buy the book is if its REALLY pretty, otherwise its the battlebox for me.

Eternus
17-06-2010, 13:01
I'm hearing you on this one.

The only way I'd buy the book is if its REALLY pretty, otherwise its the battlebox for me.

I think this may be the idea. People who already have 'complete' armies (or have just run out of storage space) like some of us old hands will buy the big book because that's what's appealing to us, but others, especially newer players might be more inclined to go for the box, especially if it appears tremendous value for money compared to the big book on it's own, and off they go on the path to a new army with the box contents as it's core! Makes sense I suppose. And if they make both the big book and the box contents really appealing, maybe some people with pick up both - if they can convince a bank to give them a loan that is......:eyebrows:

Bac5665
17-06-2010, 13:47
I saw the book today, and it is beautiful!! And they've made just about all of the formating changes I wanted, spells with categories, clearer unit types, better standardized special rules, its all wonderful. No glossary, but, I'll live to fight another day.

If there was no premeasuring or random charges, I'd be completely ecstatic for 8E. But, I really do think that premeasuring and random charges are such a complete fundemental change and will drastically reduce the level of skill this game takes. But we'll have to see, and everything else, just about, is wonderful.

Azethel
17-06-2010, 13:54
I think this may be the idea. People who already have 'complete' armies (or have just run out of storage space) like some of us old hands will buy the big book because that's what's appealing to us, but others, especially newer players might be more inclined to go for the box, especially if it appears tremendous value for money compared to the big book on it's own, and off they go on the path to a new army with the box contents as it's core! Makes sense I suppose. And if they make both the big book and the box contents really appealing, maybe some people with pick up both - if they can convince a bank to give them a loan that is......:eyebrows:

My gaming group of 6 have pre ordered 2 of the book and 2 of us plan to get the box set as I want to start HE and one plays Skaven.

Eternus
17-06-2010, 13:56
I saw the book today, and it is beautiful!! And they've made just about all of the formating changes I wanted, spells with categories, clearer unit types, better standardized special rules, its all wonderful. No glossary, but, I'll live to fight another day.

If there was no premeasuring or random charges, I'd be completely ecstatic for 8E. But, I really do think that premeasuring and random charges are such a complete fundemental change and will drastically reduce the level of skill this game takes. But we'll have to see, and everything else, just about, is wonderful.

I think that the random charges is a good idea - it will take the game a step back from math hammer, as you won't be able to sit there and work out 'If I set up my unit this many inches onto the table, at an angle of 78 degrees, and move them exactly 7 and a quarter inches per move phase, and the crow flies west past the window, then I'll be in combat at exactly 9 minutes past 3 tomorrow after noon.......blah blah blah'

The randomness is meant to be part of the challenge. If you know exactly what your robot army will do every turn, then it makes things a little predictable. Randomness is good IMO, as well as being more - *ahem* - realistic. It's more like being a general commanding your army rather than a gamer pushing models around a table.

Jedi152
17-06-2010, 14:05
The main question is: Has the game improved significantly enough to have warranted a new edition?

Eternus
17-06-2010, 14:13
The main question is: Has the game improved significantly enough to have warranted a new edition?

At 45 for the basic book I certainly hope so!!

wickedvoodoo
17-06-2010, 14:13
The main question is: Has the game improved significantly enough to have warranted a new edition?

It is really starting to sound that way. the more confirmations we get, the more I am liking what i hear. Alot of my personal gripes with fantasy battle are being addressed with this book it seems.


I think that the random charges is a good idea - it will take the game a step back from math hammer, as you won't be able to sit there and work out 'If I set up my unit this many inches onto the table, at an angle of 78 degrees, and move them exactly 7 and a quarter inches per move phase, and the corw flies west past the window, then I'll be in combat at exactly 9 minutes past 3 tomorrow after noon.......blah blah blah'

The randomness is meant to be part of the challenge. If you know exactly what your robot army will do every turn, then it makes things a little predictable. Randomness is good IMO, as well as being more - *ahem* - realistic. It's more like being a general commanding your army rather than a gamer pushing models around a table.

I agree almost entirely. I have seen situatons where two facing regiments are both just holding their ground, as both know if they move forward at all then the enemy will get to charge the turn after. I thought this was a bit silly.

Eternus
17-06-2010, 14:16
It is really starting to sound that way. the more confirmations we get, the more I am liking what i hear. Alot of my personal gripes with fantasy battle are being addressed with this book it seems.



I agree almost entirely. I have seen situatons where two facing regiments are both just holding their ground, as both know if they move forward at all then the enemy will get to charge the turn after. I thought this was a bit silly.

Battles have often been decided by who gets the charge in, especially with cavalry heavy armies.

Havock
17-06-2010, 14:44
I think that the random charges is a good idea - it will take the game a step back from math hammer, as you won't be able to sit there and work out 'If I set up my unit this many inches onto the table, at an angle of 78 degrees, and move them exactly 7 and a quarter inches per move phase, and the crow flies west past the window, then I'll be in combat at exactly 9 minutes past 3 tomorrow after noon.......blah blah blah'

The randomness is meant to be part of the challenge. If you know exactly what your robot army will do every turn, then it makes things a little predictable. Randomness is good IMO, as well as being more - *ahem* - realistic. It's more like being a general commanding your army rather than a gamer pushing models around a table.

On the contrary, right now you can compensate for horrible dice by setting up combats so that you are almost garantueed to win. In 8th ed, if it all decides to go sour there may not be anything you can do to fix it.

loveless
17-06-2010, 14:48
The main question is: Has the game improved significantly enough to have warranted a new edition?

The expanded list of magic items, semi-cleaned-up magic phase, and a lack of reliance on charging (though it still seems important, my initial response is that it's not the end-all-be-all it was in 7th) have renewed my interest in the game.

At the same time, the quasi-focus on massive infantry blocks strikes me as both obnoxious (Soooo many models to paint and, once again, most of the ones in the back ranks do little more than act as wound counters) and a money-grabbing ploy (buy more boxes! get more in-game benefits!).

It's a different-enough beast from 7th to be worthwhile. 7th was fast becoming a mess as well, so a considerable revamp is welcomed.

Bac5665
17-06-2010, 14:51
I think that the random charges is a good idea - it will take the game a step back from math hammer, as you won't be able to sit there and work out 'If I set up my unit this many inches onto the table, at an angle of 78 degrees, and move them exactly 7 and a quarter inches per move phase, and the crow flies west past the window, then I'll be in combat at exactly 9 minutes past 3 tomorrow after noon.......blah blah blah'

The randomness is meant to be part of the challenge. If you know exactly what your robot army will do every turn, then it makes things a little predictable. Randomness is good IMO, as well as being more - *ahem* - realistic. It's more like being a general commanding your army rather than a gamer pushing models around a table.

I agree entirely with your assessment of the effects of the change. I disagree in the strongest terms with whether or not its a good thing.

You want a general commanding troops. Ok. I want a gamer pushing models around. Or, at least, I want there to be game rules that reward clever tactics and punish bad tactics. Random charges more than anything else take away from that. Now, I might do everything right and lose because of the charge distance. Or an enemy might do everything wrong and win because of a good charge roll.

And yes, I'm aware of the analogy with break tests, and that a good or bad one can swing the game massively, based on luck and nothing else. I'm with you. The best I can say to that is that one such roll is enough. More is too much.

And sure, it might be more realistic to have random charge distances. (Though I don't really see how random makes sense, but I accept that my military history is quite weak.) But I don't play warhammer to have an immersive military sim. I play it because of the fun tactical challenge and the cool models. Yes, realism is good, and immersion is good, but not at the expense of the strategy of the game. For example, good random is all these extra Ld tests we'll make for reforming and fear and marching. These, I think are good random because they don't break the game so much. They don't reduce tactics because they give you choices, options. (well, the march blocking test may reduce tactics, but its a small change, and I'll try it out.) But random charge removes choices, it just lets the dice decide the winner, not strategy, and I strongly dislike that.

Eternus
17-06-2010, 14:52
On the contrary, right now you can compensate for horrible dice by setting up combats so that you are almost garantueed to win. In 8th ed, if it all decides to go sour there may not be anything you can do to fix it.

Except plan a contingecy. If in 7th it's possible to set up certain combats so that you are pretty sure of winning, you must be skimping elsewhere to horde this much combat power. It may almost guarantee a win in one part of the battlefield, but elsewhere you could well be struggling I would have thought, because you have finite resources so you can't pour enough power in to ensure that you win every single combat.

I guess you have to pick your fights, and this won't change in 8th - you still have to play the odds.

Bac5665 - I agree that victory should go to the best tactics in the main, or sound tactics should certainly improve your chances of winning, but random charges is just one more thing to take into consideration then. A good general should still be able to beat a poor one most of the time. For me, the idea of random charges represents that particular unit's ability to keep the momentum of a charge long enough to hit home, rather than just being a random factor to throw into the mix - Fantasy is still quite abstract, and it represents a large number of troops either building themselves up to smash the enemy or starting their assault too early and running out of steam before they get there.

I guess time will tell. Has this element not been lifted/adapted from Lord of the Rings anyway? How does it affect play 'over there'?

Bac5665
17-06-2010, 14:57
Except plan a contingecy. If in 7th it's possible to set up certain combats so that you are pretty sure of winning, you must be skimping elsewhere to horde this much combat power. It may almost guarantee a win in one part of the battlefield, but elsewhere you could well be struggling I would have thought, because you have finite resources so you can't pour enough power in to ensure that you win every single combat.

I guess you have to pick your fights, and this won't change in 8th - you still have to play the odds.

You assume there are contingency plans to have. There are plenty of times that a failed charge at the wrong time will completely ruin you. No contingency plan can save you. Well, 8E will take the ability to prevent that failed charge and replace it with the gods of luck. A very poor trade off to me.

ChaosVC
17-06-2010, 14:59
I think that the random charges is a good idea - it will take the game a step back from math hammer, as you won't be able to sit there and work out 'If I set up my unit this many inches onto the table, at an angle of 78 degrees, and move them exactly 7 and a quarter inches per move phase, and the crow flies west past the window, then I'll be in combat at exactly 9 minutes past 3 tomorrow after noon.......blah blah blah'

The randomness is meant to be part of the challenge. If you know exactly what your robot army will do every turn, then it makes things a little predictable. Randomness is good IMO, as well as being more - *ahem* - realistic. It's more like being a general commanding your army rather than a gamer pushing models around a table.

The challenge I see so far is to remain calm when you are crapped all over by the dice god (take happy pills for this one)... or very much about preventing yourself from turning into a spawn by the almighty dice god.

But you are right, 8th ed is a step back to make the game what it was supposed to be, purely for FUN, which is the main point of this hobby. I will play 7th ed when I want some challenges.

Frosty_TK
17-06-2010, 14:59
But wasn't it the desire to make combat as predictable as possible that led to "uber-units" like Deathstars, great monsters and multiple attack units being selected for games? Wiping out entire units without them having the possibility to strike back,?
In my oppinion this trend didn't improve the game, but made it less enjoyable. It was all about set up. Setting up your army and choosing the right units, and ideally to take as much "fun" for your opponent out of it by not letting him role a single die.

If adding more dice rolls and less certainty leads to more contingency plans and less eggs in one basket (read one uber unit), I think that's a good idea. And the so claimed "lost skill" will be less of learning how to guess accurately, but more about planing for contingencies, for which you actually need more units.

And by the way, more Dice should lead to more certainty in combat, not less. After all, the larger the sample number, the more it will behave as statistics dictate.

Bac5665
17-06-2010, 15:14
But wasn't it the desire to make combat as predictable as possible that led to "uber-units" like Deathstars, great monsters and multiple attack units being selected for games? Wiping out entire units without them having the possibility to strike back,?
In my oppinion this trend didn't improve the game, but made it less enjoyable. It was all about set up. Setting up your army and choosing the right units, and ideally to take as much "fun" for your opponent out of it by not letting him role a single die.

If adding more dice rolls and less certainty leads to more contingency plans and less eggs in one basket (read one uber unit), I think that's a good idea. And the so claimed "lost skill" will be less of learning how to guess accurately, but more about planing for contingencies, for which you actually need more units.

And by the way, more Dice should lead to more certainty in combat, not less. After all, the larger the sample number, the more it will behave as statistics dictate.

You're right that deathstar units became really common, but the problem was due to the army books, and the new core rules make deathstars of elite units even better (and still possible, with the 50% special cap). 8E will do nothing to change your complaints for the better.

Also, you're correct about the additional attacks in combat lowering standard deviation, and that being a good thing. My only real complaint with the random is the random charges, which are a different animal.

Havock
17-06-2010, 15:36
Except plan a contingecy. If in 7th it's possible to set up certain combats so that you are pretty sure of winning, you must be skimping elsewhere to horde this much combat power. It may almost guarantee a win in one part of the battlefield, but elsewhere you could well be struggling I would have thought, because you have finite resources so you can't pour enough power in to ensure that you win every single combat.

I guess you have to pick your fights, and this won't change in 8th - you still have to play the odds.

You 'skimp' elsewhere in 7th because you already play a small elite army. Flank charge by chaos knights = game over. In 8th ed "aw crap, I rolled mutant snake eyes"
/cue hurt.

Frankly
17-06-2010, 15:45
Your acting like the dice gods don't crap you about in 7th Ed Havock.

Random charges have been great in the few 8th Ed mock games we've played. Having foresight is good no many what edition your playing.

Havock
17-06-2010, 15:52
Oh they do, but it doesn't really matter when I flank charge something and the deck is totally stacked in my favor. 8th ed can screw you out of that too by failing the flank charge and recieving something else in your flank.

It's that you roll for everything, woods, psychology, attacking, generating more spells, movement (March ld.) and charges, it's ******* Yahtzee!

Voss
17-06-2010, 15:53
The main question is: Has the game improved significantly enough to have warranted a new edition?

Some of that will be a matter of taste, but I am pleased that they made real changes to the game and how it plays rather than the incremental wording changes that have been the hallmark of the last 4.

anthioram
17-06-2010, 16:03
And by the way, more Dice should lead to more certainty in combat, not less. After all, the larger the sample number, the more it will behave as statistics dictate.

Adding more dice to a dice roll would indeed lead to more certainty. But here you're replacing a given value to charge (which is as certain as it can get) by a dice roll.

flagnine1
17-06-2010, 16:08
so after looking thru the book I can honestly say I am not impressed. It's big and beautiful and cleans up some of the current issues people have with 7th on the other hand its added a whole slew of new problems. I see dwarves becoming the new cheese list. 16 warmahines that don't guess range and don't partial and like 6-7 master engineers makes for a really bad day.
Also you can increase the distance you charge. The distance maybe random but you can make up to one 90deg(I believe its 90) at any point along the charge and then you slide in so depending on your unit width you can add a considerable distance to your charges.
Also being able to take 2 or even 3 lord choices just seems like the return of herohammer to me. I'm gonna give it a chance but doubt I will shell out the 75$ for the book.
That's my 2 cents.

Frankly
17-06-2010, 16:19
It's that you roll for everything, woods, psychology, attacking, generating more spells, movement (March ld.) and charges, it's ******* Yahtzee!

You rolled many of those things anyway. And lets face it, its a dice rolling game, pretending that you don't like rolling dice is kinda strange.

Constantly playing pitched battle murdered the game in these last 8 months for alot of player in my area, tournaments were don't because the game was stile as hell and are people starting to play different games all together down at the club because WHFB has got to stagnate.

I hope the random generation of things on a table top will make games more situlational and less of the ''I change I win'' kind of feeling I get now out of the game.

anthioram
17-06-2010, 16:20
those 3 lords will have to cost 166 points each in 2k battles, not really gamebreaking

EDIT: to Frankly: the "I charge I win" situation can be taken care of with the rest of the changes, random charges was not needed IMO

Eternus
17-06-2010, 16:44
It seems to me that the more an army relies on a small number of, or even a single, very powerful unit to win battles, the more they risk being scuppered by a bad charge roll, though it would make sense if there are magic items available to allow either bonuses or re-rolls of the distance dice when charging - does anyone know if this is the case? Anyway, I speculate, the point is that eggs in one basket is a bad idea in 8th, because you only have to drop the basket once to feel the effects - I think the possiblility of spectacular fail when a charge doesn't make it may force people to spread their options out a little more.

I like the potential anarchy that the random charges will bring - confusion and 'chaos' is good on a battlefield. Bring it on. And anyhow, if I lose big in 8th, maybe I really will be able to start pinning it on the dice! At the end of the day, it's nearly here, so we have no option but to work out the best way to deal with it. No good discussing whether we agree with the change or not.

Fobster
17-06-2010, 16:52
I think random charges will require far more skill than 7e required. Over the last year or so I found the best armies were just point and click beasts.

With random charges the skill will be in getting enough units forward before risking a charge while accepting that your opponent may be able to get a charge off before you. The choice between risk versus reward will be really interesting, how far forward do you go before you pull the trigger? Is it worth getting an early charge off unsupported or do you risk a counter charge while getting localised superiority?

ashc
17-06-2010, 16:54
At the end of the day, it's nearly here, so we have no option but to work out the best way to deal with it. No good discussing whether we agree with the change or not.

or not play? :angel:

ChaosVC
17-06-2010, 16:55
You rolled many of those things anyway. And lets face it, its a dice rolling game, pretending that you don't like rolling dice is kinda strange.

Constantly playing pitched battle murdered the game in these last 8 months for alot of player in my area, tournaments were don't because the game was stile as hell and are people starting to play different games all together down at the club because WHFB has got to stagnate.

I hope the random generation of things on a table top will make games more situlational and less of the ''I change I win'' kind of feeling I get now out of the game.

There is rarely a "I charge I win situation" in 7th ed unless you are using a really "crappy" built going up against a power build.

Even in a balance game where both players restrain from using power list. You may only get the sure, charge and win that fight after actually taking alot of effort in manveuring and forward planing before you get into that postion without compromising your other units, and alot of times, you may have to sacrifice something before you get an "I charge I win" position. Its not as easy as alot of these 7th ed haters claim to be. Do I really need to stress the point that ridiculous powerbuilds that make "I charge I win" situation easier is a product of power creep and badly written books abused by powergamers using their list against players with balance armies or a more friendlier army? Seriously this s getting old...(and if I have to speak this out, I will ran out of breath...)

Eternus
17-06-2010, 16:56
I think random charges will require far more skill than 7e required. Over the last year or so I found the best armies were just point and click beasts.

With random charges the skill will be in getting enough units forward before risking a charge while accepting that your opponent may be able to get a charge off before you. The choice between risk versus reward will be really interesting, how far forward do you go before you pull the trigger? Is it worth getting an early charge off unsupported or do you risk a counter charge while getting localised superiority?

So true. I heard that they we're going to change the name of the game to Risk, but it was taken. Seriously though, 'risk management' will be the watchwords of 8th Edition, wait and see - the Oracle has spoken.

Finarflin
17-06-2010, 17:40
Two things:

1. A question - is charge range 2D6 + movement or 2D6 pick highest + movement? I am still confused.

2. Isn't it no longer that important to charge (only +1 CR rather than strike first). I can see that it could be a problem if you need to support a losing unit, but thats just normal tactics anyway.

ChaosVC
17-06-2010, 17:47
1.) Its 2d6 + mv for units with mv 6 and below, 3d6 remove the lowest + mv for units with mv 7++.

2.) Charge is still important because the timing of engagement or refuse engagement will affect your "grand plan"...if the dice allows it to survive the first movement phase.

Tarliyn
17-06-2010, 18:10
There is rarely a "I charge I win situation" in 7th ed unless you are using a really "crappy" built going up against a power build.

Even in a balance game where both players restrain from using power list. You may only get the sure, charge and win that fight after actually taking alot of effort in manveuring and forward planing before you get into that postion without compromising your other units, and alot of times, you may have to sacrifice something before you get an "I charge I win" position. Its not as easy as alot of these 7th ed haters claim to be. Do I really need to stress the point that ridiculous powerbuilds that make "I charge I win" situation easier is a product of power creep and badly written books abused by powergamers using their list against players with balance armies or a more friendlier army? Seriously this s getting old...(and if I have to speak this out, I will ran out of breath...)


I agree with this completely. Everyone has started saying "I charge I win" this past week, and it simply isn't true. About half or more of the combats I have seen have lasted 2+ rounds, and my main opponent is a dark elf player, it doesn't get much worse than that as far as deathstars go.

I will say this though random charges will not change that much for non-dwarf armies. Sure you will get that random flub up when you roll lower than you should have but for the most part random charges only adds about 2 inches to infantries charge range, which frankly will be nice but may not matter at all due to strike in int order.

Havock
17-06-2010, 18:25
You rolled many of those things anyway. And lets face it, its a dice rolling game, pretending that you don't like rolling dice is kinda strange.

No, its not, the dice are there for a purpose, namely make combat a bit more interesting as opposed to comparing statlines and looking at a spreadsheet.

Can the game involve a tiny bit of player skill besides 'taking your chances, or not'?

Yahtzee.

Tancred II von Quenelles
17-06-2010, 19:59
Do I understand correctly that if I m playing a mass cavalry bretonnian roster against a clanrat or stormvermin\plaguemok heave skaven roster I always strie last even if I charge, get lance +2str bonos on first charge in the game only and weven if I manage to vin a round of combat a big clanrat unit has stubborn and ld 10 if it has enough ranks that s what I figured from tidbits of rumours here and there.
thanks.

Frankly
17-06-2010, 20:08
No, its not, the dice are there for a purpose, namely make combat a bit more interesting as opposed to comparing statlines and looking at a spreadsheet.

Can the game involve a tiny bit of player skill besides 'taking your chances, or not'?

Yahtzee.

yeah I think we differ here. But thats all cool. :)

Frankly
17-06-2010, 20:10
There is rarely a "I charge I win situation" in 7th ed unless you are using a really "crappy" built going up against a power build.




Want to bet?

There are plenty of 'I charge I win' match ups in WHFB, think about it. It doesn't enough have to be crappy builds up against power builds, not at all. But if you want to keep it that simple than thats one. :)

Dokushin
17-06-2010, 20:50
There is rarely a "I charge I win situation" in 7th ed unless you are using a really "crappy" built going up against a power build.

Even in a balance game where both players restrain from using power list. You may only get the sure, charge and win that fight after actually taking alot of effort in manveuring and forward planing before you get into that postion without compromising your other units, and alot of times, you may have to sacrifice something before you get an "I charge I win" position. Its not as easy as alot of these 7th ed haters claim to be. Do I really need to stress the point that ridiculous powerbuilds that make "I charge I win" situation easier is a product of power creep and badly written books abused by powergamers using their list against players with balance armies or a more friendlier army? Seriously this s getting old...(and if I have to speak this out, I will ran out of breath...)

You seem to be vehemently protesting that the problem with 7th is "power builds" and that balanced armies are fine -- but don't random charges favor balanced lists with more units (to average out charge results)? It seems to me that snake-eyes charges would only hurt one-trick-pony "charge and break" lists.

Let me put it another way. 7th edition. Ancient Stegadon with War-Spear chief on top. 2d6+1 S6 impact, 6 S6 and 4 S3 attacks. US10 Terror after winning combat since you don't get to swing back. No flanks due to M6 monster move catching you in the jubblies. But even if a flank charge isn't going to work a frontal charge will do fine for most units. The whole game is, if that Steggie gets the charge, the game is over because whatever it touches from that point forward will break. I know; I've done it against a variety of lists. Moreover, it's < 500 pts, meaning you can still field a nice, big army, with other "I do this and win" situations (magic, or another couple Stegs, or big cavalry).

Any competitive 7th game always comes down to who gets the charge, and the charge is a guaranteed, static distance. Generals don't have to think on their feet; they don't have to form new strategies; the only "adaptation" they have to make is "hmm, now what do I have to to do to get my cavalry/Stegadon/Whatever x inches from their flank and barely in their side arc?" Boring.

I'm all for anything that makes people think on their feet a little more and adapt to a changing battlefield condition. Knowing ahead of time exactly everything that will happen isn't "skill", it's "I looked up this army on the 'net." :D

People that think 8th requires less skill: it requires less planning, or rather diminishes the effect of it. But in terms of what happens on the table? It's time to learn how to fight.

strewart
18-06-2010, 04:48
Bah. It takes plenty of skill to be able to work your stegadon into that flank charge. Everyone knows exactly how powerful it is so people are protecting flanks, shooting it with warmachines, throwing magic around, charging it with fliers to kill the fragile skink rider, fleeing its charge to leave it exposed... Now you perform a brilliant manouvre to get a dual charge off front and flank, throw the dice and fluff the roll for your flanking unit, leaving the front unit struggling in a combat that should have been yours due to strategy, it is now your opponent's due to luck.

I guess it does make it somewhat more realistic though, and since I haven't played a game with random charge distances yet I can't really judge it properly.

Petey
18-06-2010, 04:48
Just wanted to ask the OP, is this the actual full book you have? If so, well done, and what is the background section like? Has the timeline advanced at all? Has the Storm of Chaos been mentioned or has it finally officially been erased from the histories?

Cheers pal.

sorry it took so long to get back to you. It is the actual book. The background has new beautiful black and sepia artwork, and a brief overview of each race and culture. The crowning of the Everlame was mentioned in the timeline, but it seems storm has been erased for the good of the many. Current date 2522. All in all I would have bought this book for the color plates of the battles alone, very apocalypse 40k, lots of epic terrain and huge armies.

Petey
18-06-2010, 04:51
Two things:

1. A question - is charge range 2D6 + movement or 2D6 pick highest + movement? I am still confused.

2. Isn't it no longer that important to charge (only +1 CR rather than strike first). I can see that it could be a problem if you need to support a losing unit, but thats just normal tactics anyway.

2d6 plus M. cav gets 3d6 pick 2 plus M.

The CR is very important, since all the killing will be more normalized in this edition. 2 big blocks colliding will do roughly the same damage in most cases so you ll be looking for as much static rez as you can.

Petey
18-06-2010, 04:54
Do I understand correctly that if I m playing a mass cavalry bretonnian roster against a clanrat or stormvermin\plaguemok heave skaven roster I always strie last even if I charge, get lance +2str bonos on first charge in the game only and weven if I manage to vin a round of combat a big clanrat unit has stubborn and ld 10 if it has enough ranks that s what I figured from tidbits of rumours here and there.
thanks.

They are stubborn if they have more ranks than you.
Lance is unchanged from 7th.
You will strike last. It will not matter.

Petey
18-06-2010, 04:58
1.) Its 2d6 + mv for units with mv 6 and below, 3d6 remove the lowest + mv for units with mv 7++.

2.) Charge is still important because the timing of engagement or refuse engagement will affect your "grand plan"...if the dice allows it to survive the first movement phase.

1. Incorrect, but close. There is a special rule which cavalry, flyers, warbeasts, etc get that gives them 3d6 pick 2. It has nothing to do with base move, except ancestry.

2. The 1CR (from charging) will be incredibly important, mark these words.

Petey
18-06-2010, 05:09
Ok so having just reread the whole book again, I must say that the terrain rools bother me. Everything else I think I can forgive or get used to (though would it have killed them to be less ambiguous about frenzy's extra attack vs 2 weapons extra attack...)

Having been a soldier, and being a fan of military history may be hampering me here but really the terrain rools are a laughable joke. No movement penalties for near anything, except that you basically kill yourself if you try to march through a fence. I can get behind the riders of mounts having a chance to kill themselves racing through woods or rivers, but that one in six rivers in the warhammer world are composed of blood is a little much to put up with.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 05:21
1. Incorrect, but close. There is a special rule which cavalry, flyers, warbeasts, etc get that gives them 3d6 pick 2. It has nothing to do with base move, except ancestry.

2. The 1CR (from charging) will be incredibly important, mark these words.

Thanks for correcting me on the first one, I was reading other post and realised that mistake.

On the 2nd one, +1 cr is always important but not as important as you make it out to be as combat now works out in initiative order and the number of attacks you get now make it far less important.

@At frankly, Read and reread my post again before you decide to bet with me because I have been playing this game since ravening hordes and have face crap of all kinds understanding why I lose and why things happens. You are doing what 7th ed haters love to randomly accuse people of doing without backing up their case with logical answers, exaggerating. Only in this case, you are doing it without putting forward valid points of argument other than repeating like a broken record the same few words over and over again "I charge I win".

@Dokushin, you need to plan and manuveur to get that, "I win charge" baby, you can't simply teleport your units to a "I charge I win" position and hope your oponent not to manuveur out of it. And if you allow your oponent to get that from you when both of you are using average list or equally powerful list...then you either deserved to be defeated or he deserve to win for out manuveuring you.

Edit
18-06-2010, 05:35
so we got in 3 1000pt games tonight with the new rules, and i have to say....it was very fun:)

the new terrain rules and scenarios were very fun part of the games, and they definitely affect the game more than old terrain did.

games were fast, very bloody. I don't think its as serious tactician type game as it was, more beer and pretzels, but it excelled at that, we had quite a few laughs and shocked moments of hilarity.

magic was very interesting, we only had low lvl casters, but the magic phase is more of a gamble for sure. ( i never killed myself with the lvl 2, but he did forget he was a wizard in one game, losing all his spells..oh my)

You will get used to dangerous terrain checks :) fleeing through enemies, wading through swamps, angry rivers and forests and walls of fire abound (honestly the terrain setup is a game to itself, and was alot of fun)

after all the rumors and wondering how things would turn out i have to say I am pleased, it is a different feel for sure, but I like it.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 05:41
so we got in 3 1000pt games tonight with the new rules, and i have to say....it was very fun:)

the new terrain rules and scenarios were very fun part of the games, and they definitely affect the game more than old terrain did.

games were fast, very bloody. I don't think its as serious tactician type game as it was, more beer and pretzels, but it excelled at that, we had quite a few laughs and shocked moments of hilarity.

magic was very interesting, we only had low lvl casters, but the magic phase is more of a gamble for sure. ( i never killed myself with the lvl 2, but he did forget he was a wizard in one game, losing all his spells..oh my)

You will get used to dangerous terrain checks :) fleeing through enemies, wading through swamps, angry rivers and forests and walls of fire abound (honestly the terrain setup is a game to itself, and was alot of fun)

after all the rumors and wondering how things would turn out i have to say I am pleased, it is a different feel for sure, but I like it.

Pretty much what I expect it to be, glad its going to be a fun game.

-Grimgorironhide-
18-06-2010, 06:19
Hmm. Having just read the book and looked through the rules I must say that I'm simply not feeling it with all the unnecessary changes to the game. I mean the fluff/model sections are very nice and all but I would have prefered GW to just improve upon the core 7th ed rules (Which are the best sofar IMO). Granted the army balance inconsistancy was getting out of control but that could have easily been solved (For the moment at least) by setting up a ravening hordes list again and start from scratch with the books.

Some rules I like of course i.e the new magic system (though the miscast table should be toned down IMO), Striking in I order, variable regen saves, magic item list, Step up and shooting in two ranks.

I think 8th ed would have been much better IMO if they did some of the following tweaks to the 7th ed book.

-Diff terrain prevents you from marching, Very Diff no march and half move.
-All short bows, bows and long bows can shoot in two ranks.
-Random charge distances are March move +D3 inches/D6 inches.
-Add the step up rule
-Combats strike in I order like 8th ed. Chargers get +1 I on the charge.
-Make spear/Halberd/Lance wielders get +2 I on the charge instead of +1.
-Magic Phase works like 8th ed but with the miscast table weakened and bound spells remaining the same as current.
-army composition same 8th ed.
-Hero choices are limited to 3 per 2000pts or so.
-Lords limited to 1 per 1000pts, starting from 2000.
-Magic lores same as 8th ed.
-Get +2 outnumber bonus if you outnumber 2-1 and +3 for 3-1.
-Models with 20mm base need 5 for a rank, 25mm need 4 and 40mm need 3.
-Replace all N's on the wound chart with 6's. Just so it's always possible to wound something.
-Fear and terror work like 8th ed.
-Frenzy like 8th ed.
-Swarms only suffer D3 wounds from losing combat.
-Need US 10+ to break ranks. Determined at the start of combat.


cheers.

Petey
18-06-2010, 07:22
Thanks for correcting me on the first one, I was reading other post and realised that mistake.

On the 2nd one, +1 cr is always important but not as important as you make it out to be as combat now works out in initiative order and the number of attacks you get now make it far less important.

@At frankly, Read and reread my post again before you decide to bet with me because I have been playing this game since ravening hordes and have face crap of all kinds understanding why I lose and why things happens. You are doing what 7th ed haters love to randomly accuse people of doing without backing up their case with logical answers, exaggerating. Only in this case, you are doing it without putting forward valid points of argument other than repeating like a broken record the same few words over and over again "I charge I win".

@Dokushin, you need to plan and manuveur to get that, "I win charge" baby, you can't simply teleport your units to a "I charge I win" position and hope your oponent not to manuveur out of it. And if you allow your oponent to get that from you when both of you are using average list or equally powerful list...then you either deserved to be defeated or he deserve to win for out manuveuring you.

Chaos VC, as you and I often has similar feelings towards rules subjects that have cropped up in the past, I'm surprised at your feelings towards the CR bonus for charging. I feel that with stepping up rule combined with removing HwS bonus to armor save they have effectively removed CR due to wounds to like styled infantry. For example, empire spears, halberds and swordsmen units all do an average of 2ish wounds vs each other. While some units will break the mold, it seems to me that core units will basically not give wide swings in the game any more.
This normalization of CR due to wounds (again, some units will not hold to this) means that static CR will become more important, not less. Although, it does seem to me that some tactics will be important for the first time in a long time, like taking a hill. Charging an enemy from top a hill gives 2CR, which will be a big swing.
While this in no way says that combat is a "done deal" for the charger (like it was in all other editions), it will be a very important factor, one which may add complexity to units like spears and dwarves who traditionally are built only to recieve a charge. Now perhaps we ll see them be more assertive.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 07:54
Chaos VC, as you and I often has similar feelings towards rules subjects that have cropped up in the past, I'm surprised at your feelings towards the CR bonus for charging. I feel that with stepping up rule combined with removing HwS bonus to armor save they have effectively removed CR due to wounds to like styled infantry. For example, empire spears, halberds and swordsmen units all do an average of 2ish wounds vs each other. While some units will break the mold, it seems to me that core units will basically not give wide swings in the game any more.
This normalization of CR due to wounds (again, some units will not hold to this) means that static CR will become more important, not less. Although, it does seem to me that some tactics will be important for the first time in a long time, like taking a hill. Charging an enemy from top a hill gives 2CR, which will be a big swing.
While this in no way says that combat is a "done deal" for the charger (like it was in all other editions), it will be a very important factor, one which may add complexity to units like spears and dwarves who traditionally are built only to recieve a charge. Now perhaps we ll see them be more assertive.

Well, It may be still important for say 2 units of low attack count and low strength rank & file units like swords man and say, marauders with handweapon and shield fighting each other because they don't really do much damage to each others. It will become less important as we begin to see things things with higher strength and more attack dishing out at each other where kills, stats, are influnced by alot of dice rollings, naturally to have more attacks also means you have lesser or lower armour saves. So the combat will be very bloody where kills are lot more important now.

With 7th ed power creep, the game is pretty much dominated by alot of such powerful units and with the new spear and 2 rank fighting rules. Charge bonus will be less and less important as the fight scale up.

But I agree with you that charging down from a hill will make some different if both unit are only marginally different is quality and number of attacks. Not a bad idea for dwarven defence tactics with a unit of hammerers waiting for a counter charge if the dice gods allows it.

Perhaps its only matters depending on units match up and its importance is actually very circumstantial, which makes it less important I suppose.

Especially when you have the new more ranks=sturbon rules.

Frankly
18-06-2010, 09:04
@At frankly, Read and reread my post again before you decide to bet with me because I have been playing this game since ravening hordes and have face crap of all kinds understanding why I lose and why things happens. You are doing what 7th ed haters love to randomly accuse people of doing without backing up their case with logical answers, exaggerating. Only in this case, you are doing it without putting forward valid points of argument other than repeating like a broken record the same few words over and over again "I charge I win".



I did read your post, I will take that bet, I have been wargaming for over 20 years(I have cardboard models from WHFB), I'm not a 7th Ed hater(loved the rules), I did back up my reply.

So your wrong on all points.

Anything else?

If you'd like another example; I play a DE fast cavalry list to WIN combat on the turn I Charge. Period. I go out the overwelm and win combats by usually taking out front ranks and/or flank charge. But my armylist isn't there to hang about in combat. WHFB has a issue that ALOT of units designs and/or armylist designs can point and shot and kill an opponent's unit and the opponent loses before he rolls a dice, ie. Blood knights, chaos knights, dragons, dual monsters are all point and shot units, with long range advantage with the ability to make a non-contest out of the game when they get the charge. Do you understand?

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 09:10
I did read your post, I will take that bet, I have been wargaming for over 20 years, I'm not a 7th Ed hater(loved the rules), I did back up my reply.

So your wrong on all points.

Anything else?

You can take that bet, but it doesn't make you any less wrong ;).

20 years and yet you can't come out with a decent point other than repeating like a broken record the same words. You last post wasn't even anymore different then all your other posts.

Anything you need to add?

Frankly
18-06-2010, 09:13
Sorry mate, I was Editing while you replied, my bad.

Anything else to add? Me?

Yeah your logic is amazing. Whats all the broken record stuff?(you keep repeating the same phrase, which is funny) You want me to keep on saying the same thing because your not getting the point and then your complaining that I'm a broken record. Its like kicking a puppy.

The basic issue here is that you looked at one of my posts, took it out of context and relied to it, thats it. Can we finish now?

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 09:23
Sorry mate, I was Editing while you replied, my bad.

Anything else to add? Me?

Yeah your logic is amazing. Whats all the broken record stuff? You want me to keep on saying the same thing because your not getting the point and then your complaining that I'm a broken record. Its like kicking a puppy.

The basic issue here is that you looked at one of my posts, took it out of context and relied to it, thats it. Can we finish now?

I think you are the one with questionable logic, you keep insisting that there are plenty of "I charge I win" situations but you didn't even know how to back that up with any logical argument when I said no, because to get into those position requires planning and out manuveuring your oponents.

You sure you have been playing the same game for the past 10 years? Since the other 10 years is pretty worthless to 6th and 7th ed warhammer which pretty much share the same fixed charge distance rules.

Frankly
18-06-2010, 09:25
I think you are the one with questionable logic, you keep insisting that there are plenty of "I charge I win" situations but you didn't even know how to back that up with any logical argument when I said no, because to get into those position requires planning and out manuveuring your oponents.

You sure you have been playing the same game for the past 10 years? Since the other 10 years is pretty worthless to 6th and 7th ed warhammer which pretty much share the same fixed charge distance rules.

Please mate, please go back and read my posts, before you carry on. Because your just wrong.

Even so. I could give you ANOTHER example if you like?

Back on topic: I like WHFB armybooks.

Frosty_TK
18-06-2010, 09:45
Let It be known that I shun deathstars, have avoided turneys because it seems to be a competition of who get's the cheesiest out of the army lists, and have enjoyed 7th edition games in our gaming group. But I think I might like 8th more. Here's why:



You're right that deathstar units became really common, but the problem was due to the army books, and the new core rules make deathstars of elite units even better (and still possible, with the 50% special cap). 8E will do nothing to change your complaints for the better.

Though Army Books enabled Death Star units, it were the rules that supported them, and except for impact hits made them nigh immortal. 8th will enable you to wear them down in close combat, will sport more deadly shooting, and more powerful but random magic. And a single Flank charge will deny it any supporting attacks (against that flanking unit), while you get all of 'em. Currently, you could attack a Deathstar from almost anywhere with anything but a deathstar, and he had a fair amount of chance to get out unscathed. As Eternus said



Anyway, I speculate, the point is that eggs in one basket is a bad idea in 8th, because you only have to drop the basket once to feel the effects - I think the possiblility of spectacular fail when a charge doesn't make it may force people to spread their options out a little more.

and as stated, I share his oppinion. You take few elite units, you will be setting yourself up for a spectacular fail more often than in the previous edition.



Also, you're correct about the additional attacks in combat lowering standard deviation, and that being a good thing. My only real complaint with the random is the random charges, which are a different animal.


Adding more dice to a dice roll would indeed lead to more certainty. But here you're replacing a given value to charge (which is as certain as it can get) by a dice roll.

My example was ment to drive home that combat will be more reliable. Random charging is indeed another matter, and also not quite to my liking. But I don't concider it to be the hallmark of less skill. Under current rules, it became a game of shuffling units 2" back and forth to stay out of charge range until circumstances changed or time ran out. Not alltogether fun or very exciting.
Under the next rules, I can envision single units charging ahead with eager 12", just to be devasted in the opponents turn, when his battle line has to deal with just one target. I see short charges hampering coordinated attacks. But you know what currently makes me think that that's not "less skill"? Because I imagine that you will have to try to keep your battle line formation. Because you will have to field reserves to fill the gaps in your lines. For something will fail. And shuffling won't matter, because it's not so much about who get's the charge, and the opponent might reach you anyway. I like that idea, but not everyone has to.



There is rarely a "I charge I win situation" in 7th ed unless you are using a really "crappy" built going up against a power build.
Actually, there are quite some unless one side especially restrains on taking specific units, disregarding the occasional snake eyes for insane courage. Multi charges, monsters, multi attack infantry Units, some heavy cavalry charges, etc. And let's not get started on outnumber and fear, a mechanic the undead once needed to pull anything off. You get the idea. Underscored by the power creep you pinpoint the problem on, this was generally worse with books that got published later.
Now, indeed infantry should be cut down by the charge of a heavy cavalry unit. They should die in heaps against monsters. But they should posess a decent chance of taking someone with them. Something not present under 7th edition rules because they never got to return attacks.

I've tried to make a point about why I think that there will still be an equal amount of skill in the next edition, though it is of course of a different kind. I've also tried to make a point about how random charges may not be what we want, but is something that's not that bad as it's made to appear. And finally I think I've highlighted several things I like more about 8th edition than about 7th. Whether it plays out that way remains to bee seen.

--------------------------------
By the way:


@At frankly, Read and reread my post again before you decide to bet with me because I have been playing this game since ravening hordes and have face crap of all kinds understanding why I lose and why things happens.
If that's going to be an argument, I've been around from before ravening hordes, so my oppinion would amount to more by that logic. Nontheless, I see things differently than you. Who's right, and who's wrong? And would the next one who claims to have been around for even before that trump both our oppinions?

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 10:04
Let It be known that I shun deathstars, have avoided turneys because it seems to be a competition of who get's the cheesiest out of the army lists, and have enjoyed 7th edition games in our gaming group. But I think I might like 8th more. Here's why:



Though Army Books enabled Death Star units, it were the rules that supported them, and except for impact hits made them nigh immortal. 8th will enable you to wear them down in close combat, will sport more deadly shooting, and more powerful but random magic. And a single Flank charge will deny it any supporting attacks (against that flanking unit), while you get all of 'em. Currently, you could attack a Deathstar from almost anywhere with anything but a deathstar, and he had a fair amount of chance to get out unscathed. As Eternus said



and as stated, I share his oppinion. You take few elite units, you will be setting yourself up for a spectacular fail more often than in the previous edition.




My example was ment to drive home that combat will be more reliable. Random charging is indeed another matter, and also not quite to my liking. But I don't concider it to be the hallmark of less skill. Under current rules, it became a game of shuffling units 2" back and forth to stay out of charge range until circumstances changed or time ran out. Not alltogether fun or very exciting.
Under the next rules, I can envision single units charging ahead with eager 12", just to be devasted in the opponents turn, when his battle line has to deal with just one target. I see short charges hampering coordinated attacks. But you know what currently makes me think that that's not "less skill"? Because I imagine that you will have to try to keep your battle line formation. Because you will have to field reserves to fill the gaps in your lines. For something will fail. And shuffling won't matter, because it's not so much about who get's the charge, and the opponent might reach you anyway. I like that idea, but not everyone has to.


Actually, there are quite some unless one side especially restrains on taking specific units, disregarding the occasional snake eyes for insane courage. Multi charges, monsters, multi attack infantry Units, some heavy cavalry charges, etc. And let's not get started on outnumber and fear, a mechanic the undead once needed to pull anything off. You get the idea. Underscored by the power creep you pinpoint the problem on, this was generally worse with books that got published later.
Now, indeed infantry should be cut down by the charge of a heavy cavalry unit. They should die in heaps against monsters. But they should posess a decent chance of taking someone with them. Something not present under 7th edition rules because they never got to return attacks.

I've tried to make a point about why I think that there will still be an equal amount of skill in the next edition, though it is of course of a different kind. I've also tried to make a point about how random charges may not be what we want, but is something that's not that bad as it's made to appear. And finally I think I've highlighted several things I like more about 8th edition than about 7th. Whether it plays out that way remains to bee seen.

--------------------------------
By the way:

If that's going to be an argument, I've been around from before ravening hordes, so my oppinion would amount to more by that logic. Nontheless, I see things differently than you. Who's right, and who's wrong? And would the next one who claims to have been around for even before that trump both our oppinions?

I believe that my statement is clear that I have been playing the game from the begining of 6th to the end of 7th ed for 10 years and my experience tells me that Frankly statements, including yours are hardly true. Not that I have 10 years of experience there fore I have an "auto win argument buttom". But I can't stop you from doing it.

Another point is that people are not doing useless restraining to their list because the game simply aren't very balance to begin with and we have to make our effort to do our best to make it work and alot of us want to fight proper armies, not monster hammer or duo stank altars.

But even then, the first few phases of 6th ed is wonderous because min max army can be defeated by balance army until the power creep for 6th ed begins. I can tell you that even VC had had a hard time winning seemingly favourable combat in 6th ed even with a vampire and the fight can last a couple of phase, can't say the same for 7th ed vc without restraining yourself and doing a balance list.

And to be honest, despite having less dice to roll and no need to move a model at a time, the game can last from 2 to 4hrs. Where is that "I Charge I win" come from if the game takes that long to finish? Again, those situation would present itself only when there is a huge disparity in power between list.


@Frankly, haha, nice way to avoid the debate.

ashc
18-06-2010, 10:15
The start of 6th edition was awesome as I remember correctly.

Actually, 6th edition in general was pretty darn good until 7th came crashing round to punch us all in the unmentionables.

Frosty_TK
18-06-2010, 10:16
Could you please clarify what you are getting at in anything but the following quote. Sorry, I don't understand it.


And to be honest, despite having less dice to roll and no need to move a model at a time, the game can last from 2 to 4hrs. Where is that "I Charge I win" come from if the game takes that long to finish? Again, those situation would present itself only when there is a huge disparity in power between list.
I have found a misconception. You think that "I charge I win" concerns the game. I apply it to single combats. Only Numerous such "I Charge I win combats" amount to total victory. And because the charging units seldom took damage this could be repetead until time ran out. This is not based on power imbalance, and it was simply dull to play.

Frosty_TK
18-06-2010, 10:16
pressing "Back" amounts to strange double posts..
*deleted*

Frankly
18-06-2010, 10:23
I believe that my statement is clear that I have been playing the game from the begining of 6th to the end of 7th ed for 10 years and my experience tells me that Frankly statements, including yours are hardly true....



It'd be great. But again. Your just wrong. I gave examples(which you wanted) to which you haven't referred to, so has Frosty for that matter. Not statements.

Look, my point was its was to easy for players like ME to walk into games/tournaments to win through having assault troops with long charge ranges. Thats my opinion. I could 'point, charge and win' combat thats list-hammer and thats what you could do in 7th Ed. The very last tournament I went to had me, a chaos knight list(hi mike :)) and a HE cavalry list that did all the same thing.

Sorry that I haven't gone into detailed examples ChaosVC, but I really didn't think it was that much of a big deal. It's pretty basic stuff.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 10:26
Could you please clarify what you are getting at in anything but the following quote. Sorry, I don't understand it.

I have found a misconception. You think that "I charge I win" concerns the game. I apply it to single combats. Only Numerous such "I Charge I win combats" amount to total victory. And because the charging units seldom took damage this could be repetead until time ran out. This is not based on power imbalance, and it was simply dull to play.

I think that even at a one unit vs one unit combat level, to allow yourself to be in that situation is obviously the fault of the loser or a well thought out manuveur of the winner, you still need to manuveur across the 24" to do it under magic and heavy fire. How is that boring? You mean that its only fun when they fight to the last man rolling hundred of dice before the outcome can be resolved? There are only 6 turns in the game mind you. Not to mention that the "I charge I win" stituation base on your defination can very muchbe a trap set by your oponent.

Spiney Norman
18-06-2010, 10:32
The main question is: Has the game improved significantly enough to have warranted a new edition?

From my preview game, I would say it has definitely improved. The way combat works is far, far better. The step-up rule makes combat much, much fairer, so that elite units (or DE assassins) who can rush forward and slaughter an entire rank of enemy and not get hit back at all in combat are suddenly finding that the mates of the grunts they just slaughtered are standing right there to wreak bloody vengence. its great that all units now have the opportunity to fight at full capacity with their stats, instead of being denied the ability to fight due to striking order.

Magic is now more fun, but less game-dominating, all in all I like the 8th Ed changes, even if it is going to mean some pretty major remodeling of my armies.

Frosty_TK
18-06-2010, 10:51
I think that even at a one unit vs one unit combat level, to allow yourself to be in that situation is obviously the fault of the loser or a well thought out manuveur of the winner, you still need to manuveur across the 24" to do it under magic and heavy fire. How is that boring? You mean that its only fun when they fight to the last man rolling hundred of dice before the outcome can be resolved? There are only 6 turns in the game mind you. Not to mention that the "I charge I win" stituation base on your defination can very muchbe a trap set by your oponent.

But exactly this "Let's not get charged" led to the 2" shuffles back and forth which I portrayed in the initial post as "not fun", and which you have not commented on.
Yes. I've had very demanding games of who got to charge whom. But that's it. There was no race for support. the "cavalry to the rescue moment" happened only occasionally. I've had three of my empire regiments layed out luring khornegors into a trap, from which they should never have emerged alive. And yet they came out because of the sheer amount of attacks they had to each side. I've had all these moments. But in generell? You charge of what you're sure, or not at all. And in the freak circumstances that that thing fails, you curse horribly.
We comply that the focus shifts dramatically away from positioning to actual combat. But while I like that change, you comdemn it. And you have yet to refute my arguments about the good things I see in it.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 11:03
Well I acknowledge that the situation you describe do exist, the frequency of that happening is very much the same as the frequency happening for those scenarios that you deny existing when you play balance games or near balance games(well you can't have absolute balance...I don't even know why I am am explaining this).

I have many an occassions where my chaos warriors have to be saved from units charging them, they held and finally was saved by a near by horseman/unit that happen to beat something they charge earlier. And I have instances where my highelves White lions(they are red) fought to the last against an empire knights with chars, so that my swordmasters, previously engaged with a unit of kislev lancers manage to win their fight and come to the rescue to turn the tide.
There was also this instance where my(borrowed from friends really) empire swordsman lasted long enough against a unit of grave guards so that I can do a decisive charge into their rear with my returning knights. I can go on and on...

What you describe is basically because of huge disparity of power.

Eternus
18-06-2010, 11:19
Several people have mentioned the nervous shuffling of units back and forth on the edge of what we think is our opponents charge range, neither player willing to commit to a charge or put themselves in a position to be charged - this is something about 7th I have really hated, and epitomises both the impact of getting the charge in and by extention the pitiful state of some aspects of 7th at this point in time. The game should encourage and reward dynamic gameplay and daring moves, not have two battle lines staring at each other from 13" away and neither player wants to make a move because they are afraid (and in general rightly so) of getting their line mown down because the enemy got the charge in.

There is a degree of skill in manouvering into forcing your opponent's hand, but when this results in neither army committing until they are forced to, rather than charging forward like the battle scenes from Braveheart, or that great cavalry charge in Kingdom of Heaven, then something has gone wrong. This isn't a thumb war. It's Warhammer, not Borehammer. To quote the Rulebook of another game - play like you've got a pair! So you might not win every time, but at least enjoy the battle, rather than have 150 little men stand around shuffling their feet like a teenage boy who can't pluck up the stones to ask out the girl he has fancied forever. I guarantee, if, just sometimes, you say 'what the hell' and get stuck in, then the dice gods may smile on your boldness and reward your pluck.

Or they might kick you in the goolies. You can never say for sure, so you may as well just enjoy it.

In short, if the rules changes make us more likely to get those combat units fighting in close combat rather than standing around, if the hesitaion can be banshied back to the depths of the wastes where is belongs, then the changes are good. Though I think this has been a great discussion so far, as most of us haven't had the chance to read through the book we're not arguing from a position of complete understanding. The next few weeks or months are bound to be filled with cries of 'ah, I get why they did that now!' and 'oh, that's not as bad as I thought it would be'.

I can't wait to get my copy of this book.

Kayosiv
18-06-2010, 11:28
. The game should encourage and reward dynamic gameplay and daring moves, not have two battle lines staring at each other from 13" away and neither player wants to make a move because they are afraid (and in general rightly so) of getting their line mown down because the enemy got the charge in.


Meh, In my games vs. approximately 3 dozen opponents, about 2 dozen of which I hadn't known at the time or have never seen since, this has never happened to me.

Granted I have seen it happen (twice in fact, different games) in games between others. Still, I never put myself in a position where my army has no sacrificial units or I deploy where that incident is going to happen.

I am not praising myself here, simply saying that I always saw it as something that was avoidable. If you really get into a mexican standoff that benefits neither army, your list needed to be different before it hit the tabletop.

Jedi152
18-06-2010, 11:50
From my preview game, I would say it has definitely improved. The way combat works is far, far better. The step-up rule makes combat much, much fairer, so that elite units (or DE assassins) who can rush forward and slaughter an entire rank of enemy and not get hit back at all in combat are suddenly finding that the mates of the grunts they just slaughtered are standing right there to wreak bloody vengence. its great that all units now have the opportunity to fight at full capacity with their stats, instead of being denied the ability to fight due to striking order.

Magic is now more fun, but less game-dominating, all in all I like the 8th Ed changes, even if it is going to mean some pretty major remodeling of my armies.
That's good to hear, i was worried it was a token update to make people fork out more.

Ultimate Life Form
18-06-2010, 11:51
That's good to hear, i was worried it was a token update to make people fork out more.

No, in hindsight I think that would be more true for 7th. :eyebrows:

MrD29
18-06-2010, 12:02
I'm reading all the feedback from preview games and looks like people already loves new edition. Evan so worried my-slann-is-so-doomed ejoyed it.
Does it mean that Mr.Ward and GW did a good job???

Voss
18-06-2010, 13:26
It may be a little too early to say. However, after pouring over the rules for several hours, I am pretty pleased. Its definitely a new game rather than a series of trivial changes for the sake of putting out a new edition, and that really pleases me.

Overall I'm happy with the changes to combat, shooting and definitely magic (though I'm leery of trying to cast big spells- I'm pretty sure exploding wizards will be a common feature of 4th ed). Magic heavy armies won't dominate non-magic heavy armies anymore and thats definitely an improvement.

I'm actually planning on pulling out and dusting off one my old armies, and thats could be a sign of a successful rules set. I considered 7th bad enough that I didn't play more than a dozen games. If 8th continues to please me, I'll get back into it rather than selling off my stuff like I was planning.

Now I'm just going through army books and seeing what I need to do to my old armies to make them effective in 8th and which will be more fun.

madden
18-06-2010, 13:52
Basic slayers can now actually roll some dice instead of having there front rank wiped and just dying slowly plus there random charge makes them a choice again instead of iron brakers who are desinged to take charges and just hold. All theroumers and confermations I've seen make it look to be good and enjoyable again.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 13:58
It'd be great. But again. Your just wrong. I gave examples(which you wanted) to which you haven't referred to, so has Frosty for that matter. Not statements.

Look, my point was its was to easy for players like ME to walk into games/tournaments to win through having assault troops with long charge ranges. Thats my opinion. I could 'point, charge and win' combat thats list-hammer and thats what you could do in 7th Ed. The very last tournament I went to had me, a chaos knight list(hi mike :)) and a HE cavalry list that did all the same thing.

Sorry that I haven't gone into detailed examples ChaosVC, but I really didn't think it was that much of a big deal. It's pretty basic stuff.

Well, I have also addressed that if you read my replies. But your complain is about getting to hit first while charging is a huge advantage. My complain is that, charging now is random. Can you see the relevence?

As for shuffling, I acknowledge that that had happened, but not as much as you guys had claim it to be. I believe alot of people have mentioned this too in this thread and others.

Frosty_TK
18-06-2010, 15:50
I guess the amount of shuffling you encounter does depend on your gaming group. So let's rest that case, and I think we can agree that this wasn't exactly the best part of the rules.



Well I acknowledge that the situation you describe do exist, the frequency of that happening is very much the same as the frequency happening for those scenarios that you deny existing when you play balance games or near balance games(well you can't have absolute balance...I don't even know why I am am explaining this).


If you feel you have to explain this, than I'm sorry. For I know that you can have fun with "low power" lists, so no "denying". But it's no special feat. Please follow my reasoning:
As a general, you try to minimize chance. "The great fighters of the past excluded any possibility of loosing, and waited for a chance to win" - Sun Tsu "The Art of War" Chapter 6. E.g. strategy dictates to take the most invincible units, and to wait for the opportunity to charge (see "I win charge"). Under 7th edition, there was no downside to it. The "tradeoff" was only that you had less weak units to loose. Advantage without disadvantage is not tactics, it's a no-brainer. 8th seems to change that. (see the "all eggs in one basket" argument)
If me and my opponent constantly fight with one hand behind our back to get drawn out combats and fun through "low power" lists (which we actually do), it's a poor mark for 7th edition and its army books.



[...]My complain is that, charging now is random.[...]


As I tried to lay out previously, random charge distances just take away the "guess work" of charge distance. It changes the required abilities a good general has to have from "good sight" to "better (contingency) planing". So though it is hugely different, I don't see the point in blaming the loss of control as a loss of skill. With the less restricted movment rules, there's even the chance for more maneuvers, traps and tactics during game, in comparison to during set up as of now. Or so I guess. I don't know, I'll have to wait and see, and only then I can tell you whether these tactics and strategies will really play a role.

panshandle
18-06-2010, 15:58
There is an errata in it! How can it have an errata in it, its not released yet?

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 16:05
I guess the amount of shuffling you encounter does depend on your gaming group. So let's rest that case, and I think we can agree that this wasn't exactly the best part of the rules.



If you feel you have to explain this, than I'm sorry. For I know that you can have fun with "low power" lists, so no "denying". But it's no special feat. Please follow my reasoning:
As a general, you try to minimize chance. "The great fighters of the past excluded any possibility of loosing, and waited for a chance to win" - Sun Tsu "The Art of War" Chapter 6. E.g. strategy dictates to take the most invincible units, and to wait for the opportunity to charge (see "I win charge"). Under 7th edition, there was no downside to it. The "tradeoff" was only that you had less weak units to loose. Advantage without disadvantage is not tactics, it's a no-brainer. 8th seems to change that. (see the "all eggs in one basket" argument)
If me and my opponent constantly fight with one hand behind our back to get drawn out combats and fun through "low power" lists (which we actually do), it's a poor mark for 7th edition and its army books.



As I tried to lay out previously, random charge distances just take away the "guess work" of charge distance. It changes the required abilities a good general has to have from "good sight" to "better (contingency) planing". So though it is hugely different, I don't see the point in blaming the loss of control as a loss of skill. With the less restricted movment rules, there's even the chance for more maneuvers, traps and tactics during game, in comparison to during set up as of now. Or so I guess. I don't know, I'll have to wait and see, and only then I can tell you whether these tactics and strategies will really play a role.

I have also said that a balance list in 6th ed can actually beat the min maxed list as they beat any army with planning. Don't know what you mean by "special feat" anyway we are talking about trying to make a balance tactical game and there will aways be advantage and disadvantages for every units you used, so I really don't get you there either. And please don't refer to Sun Tze, this is a game at the end of the day, if we are to apply Sun Tze wisdoms into this game, you will lose alot of friends when playing this game.

Well what about no random change and free measuring? I don't think that will hurt will it. Nothing is preventing a player to do shuffling and denying charges in this edition either, they can even chose to feel as usual. And I have done enough explaining about why fixed charge range is more tactical then random charges in other threads...so I am not going to debate with you about this any further then this.

Frankly
18-06-2010, 16:06
...But your complain is about getting to hit first while charging is a huge advantage.....



Read back mate, there was never an actually complaint, my comments on the topic were amoral. You just took the oppossing side.

I was happy to play under 7th Ed charge rules, I just think I'll be happier playing under 8th Ed rules. For reasons given ofc.

Some people won't like random encounters on such in a critical phase of the game and I understand that fully, but personal I'll like the random rolls, I know I'll eat my words when I miss that critical charge by rolling double 1's in a week or two, but hey thats wargaming.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 16:18
Read back mate, there was never an actually complaint, my comments on the topic were amoral. You just took the oppossing side.

I was happy to play under 7th Ed charge rules, I just think I'll be happier playing under 8th Ed rules. For reasons given ofc.

Erh...since when is moral involved in this discussion...? Anyway I read it again and you simply responded to my post that there are plenty of "I charge I win" situations which I disagree and have addressed them accordingly based on the definations you and frosty chose to define it.

Eternus
18-06-2010, 16:27
And I have done enough explaining about why fixed charge range is more tactical then random charges in other threads...

Without trying to devalue your opinion, I don't personally feel that random charge distance takes any of the skill out of maneuvering for the charge, because you still have to get your unit to where you you want it to be, and then make judgements on whether you believe you are close enough to delare a charge with confidence. If anything, random distances takes more skill than a set charge range, because you are having to weigh the odds of getting a high enough roll to successfully charge, and be satisfied they are in your favour before charging, rather than knowing exactly how far your unit will go. Few generals ever know exactly how their troops will behave or perform. Equally you never know when that speculative long distance charge may come good and pay dividends, so again 8th Edition is rewarding a combination of good judgement and decisive action.

That's my feeling on the subject.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 16:35
Without trying to devalue your opinion, I don't personally feel that random charge distance takes any of the skill out of maneuvering for the charge, because you still have to get your unit to where you you want it to be, and then make judgements on whether you believe you are close enough to delare a charge with confidence. If anything, random distances takes more skill than a set charge range, because you are having to weigh the odds of getting a high enough roll to successfully charge, and be satisfied they are in your favour before charging, rather than knowing exactly how far your unit will go. Few generals ever know exactly how their troops will behave or perform. Equally you never know when that speculative long distance charge may come good and pay dividends, so again 8th Edition is rewarding a combination of good judgement and decisive action.

That's my feeling on the subject.

Well I will respect your opinnion and will not debate with you or anyone any further about this and lets just agree to disagree because anymore of such debate will go "Round Round" and thats when my head hurts the most...not really...just gotten sick of having to repeat my points "endlessly".

willowdark
18-06-2010, 16:36
Eternus, barring specific equipment issues like Spears and Lances, the only time _actually_ charging matters is when charging the flank, since charging is the only way to actually engage someone in the flank.

Striking in initiative order and removing casualties from the back means that charging will have almost no impact on combats to the front. The problem is that maneuvering to the flank often means charging from a considerable distance away, since you're usually hugging terrain or coming from another combat. With a fixed charge you have a strong understanding of how you need to approach and are rewarded for understanding your speed all the way from deployment.

Variable charges means that approaching from the flank is very likely to result in dissapointment based on poor dice rolls. Essentially, they've taking that aspect of Fear away, the horrible nonsense of not getting to charge because you rolled poorly, and replaced it with a mechanic the does the same thing but effects everyone.

Variable charges might be good if every combat is front-to-front, but for flank attacks it can ruin a good strategy and well executed tactics with something that is unnecessarily random.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 16:39
Eternus, barring specific equipment issues like Spears and Lances, the only time _actually_ charging matters is when charging the flank, since charging is the only way to actually engage someone in the flank.

Striking in initiative order and removing casualties from the back means that charging will have almost no impact on combats to the front. The problem is that maneuvering to the flank often means charging from a considerable distance away, since you're usually hugging terrain or coming from another combat. With a fixed charge you have a strong understanding of how you need to approach and are rewarded for understanding your speed all the way from deployment.

Variable charges means that approaching from the flank is very likely to result in dissapointment based on poor dice rolls. Essentially, they've taking that aspect of Fear away, the horrible nonsense of not getting to charge because you rolled poorly, and replaced it with a mechanic the does the same thing but effects everyone.

Variable charges might be good if every combat is front-to-front, but for flank attacks it can ruin a good strategy and well executed tactics with something that is unnecessarily random.

My herooooo.

w3rm
18-06-2010, 16:50
I am reall glad to hear the game is fast, bloody and a ton of fun. Thats all I ask for.

Skyros
18-06-2010, 17:25
If you have the book could you check the magic part and verify if bound spells do/do not get their 'power level 'added to their casting roll?

I read the book in the store and am positive it explicitly said they don't, but I could be wrong.

Skyros
18-06-2010, 17:40
From my preview game, I would say it has definitely improved. The way combat works is far, far better. The step-up rule makes combat much, much fairer, so that elite units (or DE assassins) who can rush forward and slaughter an entire rank of enemy and not get hit back at all in combat are suddenly finding that the mates of the grunts they just slaughtered are standing right there to wreak bloody vengence. its great that all units now have the opportunity to fight at full capacity with their stats, instead of being denied the ability to fight due to striking order.

Magic is now more fun, but less game-dominating, all in all I like the 8th Ed changes, even if it is going to mean some pretty major remodeling of my armies.

I agree with this. The 7th ed core rules had quite a few flaws: magic, psychology, movement, and various combination that disadvantaged blocks of core infantry.

8th ed changes all that (IMO for the better). I don't have any quarrel with random charge distances at all. It's a gaussian distribution so you're going to be able to guess your charge range to within about one inch something like 80% of the time anyway.

I'm just amazed at people who are unhappy that 8th ed made terrain less horrific to move through. In 8th terrain may as well have either been completely open or just impassable.

8th makes far far far more changes to the game than 7th did, and I like the changes better. 7th was so barely different from 6th I felt it didn't deserve a new edition - and instead we got a round of horribly imbalanced army books. I'll be glad to see 7th fade away - didn't enjoy it much at all.

8th really changes the game up, and, in my opinion, almost all of those changes are for the better. I'm really glad how we see the end of only the front 5 guys in a regiment of 30 men counting. Soldiers are not window dressing!

Reticent
18-06-2010, 17:42
...a fixed charge you have a strong understanding of how you need to approach and are rewarded for understanding your speed all the way from deployment.

Variable charges means that approaching from the flank is very likely to result in dissapointment based on poor dice rolls. Essentially, they've taking that aspect of Fear away, the horrible nonsense of not getting to charge because you rolled poorly, and replaced it with a mechanic the does the same thing but effects everyone.

Variable charges might be good if every combat is front-to-front, but for flank attacks it can ruin a good strategy and well executed tactics with something that is unnecessarily random.

I understand how you feel, but you still have a guarunteed minimum charge range of M+2". If you absolutely detest accounting for the possibility of failure on them plot out your charges for M+2" or less and you are golden.

willowdark
18-06-2010, 17:45
Skyros, terrain penalties were ignored by skirmishers and a number of ranked units, so there was a very distinct dimension to terrain thatgave the board a lot of character.

Terrain rules were severe in 7th, but they were hardly so black and white. They also created lanes that needed to be controlled, a kind of defacto objective to even a Pitched Battle.

Skyros
18-06-2010, 17:51
Skyros, terrain penalties were ignored by skirmishers and a number of ranked units, so there was a very distinct dimension to terrain thatgave the board a lot of character.

I didn't find it so. It was black and white. Terrain either took you out of the battle for ages, or, as you say, people just ignored the terrain penalties and moved right through it like it wasn't there.

It's the most black and white terrain system of any game I've seen. Certainly more black and white than 40k's.

I just don't see the use in bemoaning the loss of something that never happened anyway. People never went through terrain. They went around it. It may as well have all been impassible, with a few units having the "may move through impassible terrain" special rule and I can't think of a single game where it would have made an impact. (Excepting wood elves and their trees).

Frosty_TK
18-06-2010, 18:31
My herooooo.

Congrats. You found someone sharing your point of view.... I think the reason you have to repeat yourself over and over again is because you don't weigh the others' arguments, you just deny them any merit, and refute just the selection that fits.
And if you think Sun Tsu (take the writing you like best, there are after all several translations) is to heavy weight and that this game(!) should be about having fun, well, welcome to eight which seems to have more fun and less strategy. But that wasn't what you desire or was it?
But since we both don't want to discuss it any further, this is it. Of course you may answer and have the last word if you please. I won't post again.

Omniassiah
18-06-2010, 18:47
Eternus, barring specific equipment issues like Spears and Lances, the only time _actually_ charging matters is when charging the flank, since charging is the only way to actually engage someone in the flank.

Striking in initiative order and removing casualties from the back means that charging will have almost no impact on combats to the front. The problem is that maneuvering to the flank often means charging from a considerable distance away, since you're usually hugging terrain or coming from another combat. With a fixed charge you have a strong understanding of how you need to approach and are rewarded for understanding your speed all the way from deployment.

Variable charges means that approaching from the flank is very likely to result in dissapointment based on poor dice rolls. Essentially, they've taking that aspect of Fear away, the horrible nonsense of not getting to charge because you rolled poorly, and replaced it with a mechanic the does the same thing but effects everyone.

Variable charges might be good if every combat is front-to-front, but for flank attacks it can ruin a good strategy and well executed tactics with something that is unnecessarily random.

I think that ChaosVC and you are both not truly understanding the math behind the random charge range. Basic infantry(4") are able to hit to charge out to there normal charge range almost 92% of the time. Dwarves can reach there normal charge range 97% of the time. Calvary I don't have the math on me but it was close to 75% if they move 7". Also remember that you don't have to pay for wheeling which extends your effective charge range for units that are not front to front. So for the most part the only time you'll really have a serious risk of failing a charge is if you want to push your units to charge further then they normally could.

Now say with a flanking unit of Calvary. Lets assume heavy cav at 7" movement. lets say you are 13 linear inches away from the unit you want to flank and need to wheel 45deg to align to be able to contact. under 7th edition you couldn't charge after burning up about 2" on the wheel you'd know this(assuming you are good at guessing ranges) so you would have to wait and maybe the target would win combat and the chance to flank would disappear. So you really had no choice in 7th edition unless you were bad at guessing ranges. In 8th edition you first will know that you will need a 6 of your roll of 3D6 drop the lowest. You will have a good idea of the probability of happening. You can still go by the previous edition outcome and play it safe and wait till next turn when you are closer. or you can take the fairly good chance that you will be able to roll that 6" and get those flankers in a turn early. Of course if you fail that charge you might be in a worse situation.

In 8th edition its a new option you have, and unlike Run in 40k it is a legitimate choice that have downsides and advantages to both of your answers. Occasionally it will screw you, but a good player should be able to manage the times where it will happen without any trouble.

willowdark
18-06-2010, 18:50
I didn't find it so. It was black and white. Terrain either took you out of the battle for ages, or, as you say, people just ignored the terrain penalties and moved right through it like it wasn't there.

It's the most black and white terrain system of any game I've seen. Certainly more black and white than 40k's.

I just don't see the use in bemoaning the loss of something that never happened anyway. People never went through terrain. They went around it. It may as well have all been impassible, with a few units having the "may move through impassible terrain" special rule and I can't think of a single game where it would have made an impact. (Excepting wood elves and their trees).

Were you playing your games exclusively on boards with only forests and hills? No game played with a water feature, like a lake or river, non-forest difficult terrain or buildings would fit your discription of the game.

Games with water features against LM had depth, with advantages leaning towards LM, just like Forested boards in games against WE. O&G, Ogres, VC, HE, DE and WoC, as well as LM and WE, all have good units that ignore difficult terrain penalties. Wood Elves have them for Woods, but not swamps or rocky outcrops. Lizardmen have Terradons who can fly in and out of woods, but also salamanders and skinks that can move through water.

You might not see the tactical advantage that Spider Riders give to an O&G army, but every time I see them they manipulate terrain to their advantage and create a tactical element to my opponent's game that I have to contend with.

Maybe you just don't see enough variety to truly visualized the dimensions of the Terrain rules, that doesn't mean they aren't there. And difficult terrain was never "essentially" impassible because you could force enemy units _into_ them to get bogged down, like intentionally charging a DE Chariot with a weak unit to force them to pursue into woods, which has happened to me at least twice.

And you still didn't acknowledge my point about creating lanes in the battlefield. Terrain was a living mechanism that defined the board. It made some parts of the board important to some units and other parts important to others, which augmented strategy by making deployment more important.

But who knows? Maybe watering that down will make the game better. Who knows? Maybe it won't.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 18:52
I think that ChaosVC and you are both not truly understanding the math behind the random charge range. Basic infantry(4") are able to hit to charge out to there normal charge range almost 92% of the time. Dwarves can reach there normal charge range 97% of the time. Calvary I don't have the math on me but it was close to 75% if they move 7". Also remember that you don't have to pay for wheeling which extends your effective charge range for units that are not front to front. So for the most part the only time you'll really have a serious risk of failing a charge is if you want to push your units to charge further then they normally could.

Now say with a flanking unit of Calvary. Lets assume heavy cav at 7" movement. lets say you are 13 linear inches away from the unit you want to flank and need to wheel 45deg to align to be able to contact. under 7th edition you couldn't charge after burning up about 2" on the wheel you'd know this(assuming you are good at guessing ranges) so you would have to wait and maybe the target would win combat and the chance to flank would disappear. So you really had no choice in 7th edition unless you were bad at guessing ranges. In 8th edition you first will know that you will need a 6 of your roll of 3D6 drop the lowest. You will have a good idea of the probability of happening. You can still go by the previous edition outcome and play it safe and wait till next turn when you are closer. or you can take the fairly good chance that you will be able to roll that 6" and get those flankers in a turn early. Of course if you fail that charge you might be in a worse situation.

In 8th edition its a new option you have, and unlike Run in 40k it is a legitimate choice that have downsides and advantages to both of your answers. Occasionally it will screw you, but a good player should be able to manage the times where it will happen without any trouble.

Probability is just a guide for assessing your chances and chances varies in real life, thats maths for you baby.

Skyros
18-06-2010, 19:04
And you still didn't acknowledge my point about creating lanes in the battlefield. Terrain was a living mechanism that defined the board.

Because it hasn't changed. You can still create lanes in the battlefield using terrain, you just have to use different terrain types than before.

You're acting like 8th ed removed ALL terrain. It hasn't. My position is that the elements it did remove rarely came up anyway (if ever) in most playing, so why mourn their passing?

Have you played an 8th ed game with the new terrain rules?

willowdark
18-06-2010, 19:07
It's not incredibly fair to use M4 infantry as an example, since it's common knowledge that they'll benefit the most from random charges, and were never exceptionally good at attacking the flank.

I also have 75% chance to pass my Fear test and charge the main body of Skeletons with my Warriors w/ Assassin and Warbanner assuming my Ld9 general is near by, but the last time I tried I didn't and ultimately lost the game when I really should have won.

I'm sorry, but adding randomness to the game mostly results in making it more frustrating, which is why Empire and Bretonnia players complain about playing Fear Causers in 7th.

Skyros, no I haven't. But for the record I think I'm more defending 7th than complaining about 8th. Come July 10 I doubt I'll try nearly as hard, but for now I'd just like to see 7th save a little face.

kaintxu
18-06-2010, 19:17
It's not incredibly fair to use M4 infantry as an example, since it's common knowledge that they'll benefit the most from random charges, and were never exceptionally good at attacking the flank.

I also have 75% chance to pass my Fear test and charge the main body of Skeletons with my Warriors w/ Assassin and Warbanner assuming my Ld9 general is near by, but the last time I tried I didn't and ultimately lost the game when I really should have won.

I'm sorry, but adding randomness to the game mostly results in making it more frustrating, which is why Empire and Bretonnia players complain about playing Fear Causers in 7th.

Skyros, no I haven't. But for the record I think I'm more defending 7th than complaining about 8th. Come July 10 I doubt I'll try nearly as hard, but for now I'd just like to see 7th save a little face.

Well i think its normal to be scared of fear or terror, dude, unless your supper heroic i think mostly everyone, and evenmore armed with swords and spear would run from a dragon, your go a 75% chance of staying thats quite a lot, i bet on those ages it would be even less.

If it was nowadays army, well just rocket him till hi dies, but on those ages what where you going to do, stab him in his feet?

willowdark
18-06-2010, 19:19
Except that they took that element out of Fear, which sucked but at least made sense, and put it in an area of the game that effects everyone and doesn't really make sense at all.

That was my point from the start.

Skyros
18-06-2010, 19:31
Skyros, no I haven't. But for the record I think I'm more defending 7th than complaining about 8th. Come July 10 I doubt I'll try nearly as hard, but for now I'd just like to see 7th save a little face.

Well,we had more meaningful terrain on the boards we played with 8th than I have ever seen in 7th. A hill, a magic fountain that let you drink and recover dead models, but also gave you stupidity, and a magical ruin that let attacks coming from units inside count as flaming and one other thing I forget because neither player wandered over to the far flank where that piece of terrain was :)

willowdark
18-06-2010, 19:44
That sounds pretty good, and I've always said that scenarios are a lot of what I'm excited about, which I guess new Terrain rules are a big part of. I just cant wrap my head around Forests that don't block LoS even if I'm not in it but behind it and ranked infantry and cav can go through it with no penalty.

Petey
18-06-2010, 22:41
I did read your post, I will take that bet, I have been wargaming for over 20 years(I have cardboard models from WHFB), I'm not a 7th Ed hater(loved the rules), I did back up my reply.

So your wrong on all points.

Anything else?

If you'd like another example; I play a DE fast cavalry list to WIN combat on the turn I Charge. Period. I go out the overwelm and win combats by usually taking out front ranks and/or flank charge. But my armylist isn't there to hang about in combat. WHFB has a issue that ALOT of units designs and/or armylist designs can point and shot and kill an opponent's unit and the opponent loses before he rolls a dice, ie. Blood knights, chaos knights, dragons, dual monsters are all point and shot units, with long range advantage with the ability to make a non-contest out of the game when they get the charge. Do you understand?

I have those damned cut outs too! Farinrond's last stand right?

I agree that the game has been steadily been dumbed down, and that s why we have those fire and forget units. Hopefully this patch is a step towards fixing it. Personally, I've always wanted the step up rule, it just makes more sense to me than cutting fools down before they get to fight back. In real fights not everyone has the same initiative in a unit.

Petey
18-06-2010, 22:45
The start of 6th edition was awesome as I remember correctly.

Actually, 6th edition in general was pretty darn good until 7th came crashing round to punch us all in the unmentionables.

agreed!!! i loved ravening hordes. That was a general's game.

Petey
18-06-2010, 22:49
I guess the amount of shuffling you encounter does depend on your gaming group. So let's rest that case, and I think we can agree that this wasn't exactly the best part of the rules.



If you feel you have to explain this, than I'm sorry. For I know that you can have fun with "low power" lists, so no "denying". But it's no special feat. Please follow my reasoning:
As a general, you try to minimize chance. "The great fighters of the past excluded any possibility of loosing, and waited for a chance to win" - Sun Tsu "The Art of War" Chapter 6. E.g. strategy dictates to take the most invincible units, and to wait for the opportunity to charge (see "I win charge"). Under 7th edition, there was no downside to it. The "tradeoff" was only that you had less weak units to loose. Advantage without disadvantage is not tactics, it's a no-brainer. 8th seems to change that. (see the "all eggs in one basket" argument)
If me and my opponent constantly fight with one hand behind our back to get drawn out combats and fun through "low power" lists (which we actually do), it's a poor mark for 7th edition and its army books.



As I tried to lay out previously, random charge distances just take away the "guess work" of charge distance. It changes the required abilities a good general has to have from "good sight" to "better (contingency) planing". So though it is hugely different, I don't see the point in blaming the loss of control as a loss of skill. With the less restricted movment rules, there's even the chance for more maneuvers, traps and tactics during game, in comparison to during set up as of now. Or so I guess. I don't know, I'll have to wait and see, and only then I can tell you whether these tactics and strategies will really play a role.

I <3 u for quoting Sun Tsu.

Petey
18-06-2010, 22:55
It's not incredibly fair to use M4 infantry as an example, since it's common knowledge that they'll benefit the most from random charges, and were never exceptionally good at attacking the flank.

I also have 75% chance to pass my Fear test and charge the main body of Skeletons with my Warriors w/ Assassin and Warbanner assuming my Ld9 general is near by, but the last time I tried I didn't and ultimately lost the game when I really should have won.

I'm sorry, but adding randomness to the game mostly results in making it more frustrating, which is why Empire and Bretonnia players complain about playing Fear Causers in 7th.

Skyros, no I haven't. But for the record I think I'm more defending 7th than complaining about 8th. Come July 10 I doubt I'll try nearly as hard, but for now I'd just like to see 7th save a little face.

I like you willow, but really you re defending a jerk. A jerk who pandered to powergamers. We re now faced with the jerk s son, the son panders to fluffy players and kids. I may not like either but I like the jerk less than the son. (if you hadn't guessed, I m talking about 7th and 8th ed here).
I liked 6th, heck I liked second and I'll play 8th and have a great time, It just isn't a wargame anymore. For that, I ll stick to playing Field of Glory, I just need to figure out how to do it with fantasy armies and magic on a scale I like.