PDA

View Full Version : The Spirit of 8th Edition



Pages : [1] 2

Eternus
25-06-2010, 09:31
After reading the articles in the latest White Dwarf, and listening to the first online commentary, it seems quite clear to me what the intention was with 8th edition. GW seem to be focussing very much on what makes Warhammer 'Warhammer'. It's as though they are reasserting Warhammers identity, it's individuality, and the whole idea of what it is to not just fight battles in the Warhammer World, but to live in the Warhammer World.

Listening to what they are saying, and they way the emphasis has moved from the game rules and mechanics to the hobby in it's entirety, I feel as though Warhammer is waking up, and realising that it is under threat from alternative systems, has donned it's armour, gripped it's hammer and is preparing to take on it's rivals.

Its positively electric. I feel like things like unusual scenario battles are soon to be the norm, rather than the exception because people will want to take the time to prepare for them where as at the minute (at our club at least) it's too easy to just say 'Yeah, just play Pitched Battle again', that Warhammer will be more exciting and dramatic than it has ever been, rather than feeling a little dry and clinical with all the focuss on rules rules rules and endless Listhammering and magic item combos all the time. It feels like it is gaining it's own conciousness, it's own gravity and momentum. Imagine the question 'Are battles really fought if we are not there to push miniature armies around?' - for the first time it feels like the answer is yes, like armies will march and blood will be spilled whether we are there to witness it or not.

Has anyone else got this feeling? Like the rules are now just a means to an end rather than the central focus?

Ultimate Life Form
25-06-2010, 09:38
Yes, yes, absolutely yes, I have to concur on all accounts. That was exactly my feeling when I was watching that mythic demo game back then. Very well put. I understand that it's a bit sad for the compulsive listhammerers and miniature pushers that argue about 1/10 inch charge distance, but I'm looking forward to this new and lively world. It seems they sacrificed the competitive aspect in favor of the hobby aspect, which is where much of the whining comes from, but that's just fine with me.

dragonet111
25-06-2010, 09:44
With my friend we almost give up Warhammer but the 8ed seems so fun we are all eager to play the new edition.

Archangelion
25-06-2010, 09:54
My gameing group hasn't played much warhammer. We just came off of a LotR film (Fellowship) campaign which was followed by a 40K map campaign, both of which lasted several months each. Now that we are putting in a few games of Warhammer to familiarize ourselves with our armies again so that playing the new rules might be a bit easier, we have been finding that we are sloping through the waist high mud that are the 7th edition rules. There are so many of them. So many restrictions on how to move a unit, how to do this, how to do that. We have been finding it very frusterating. If what you say is true, that 8th is more free flowing, that the rules aren't such a bog down and more of a bridge of method, then I think our game group will find the new rules quite refreshing!

I, for one, am really looking forward to the new rules and the new born game they will inevitably create.

Toshiro
25-06-2010, 10:11
Very well put, i agree fully with this feeling!

Desert Rain
25-06-2010, 10:20
I'm really enthusiastic about the new rules, and I can't wait to try them out in a game. I was never a competitive player who had to win, I just enjoyed the game and to me it seems that the game just got even better :D

Geep
25-06-2010, 10:21
This edition reminds me a lot of 4th ed, when I started playing, but the differences are interesting.

Magic is back to being game dominating with just a single wizard (potentially, at least), but the counters are good (limited power dice etc.), magic items are now a huge list to sort through again (which kills army individuality, but makes me nostalgic for the old folder full of cards), and armies like goblins can swarm characters.

Hero hammer has been countered a bit though as a half decent number of dispel dice is almost guaranteed, the large number of attacks from a basic unit means the impact of a combat character is less important, and units are stubborn unless outnumbered.

Overall, I feel it has lost a lot of its competitive edge and tournament style, but I am liking the nostalgia.

zeebie
25-06-2010, 10:23
now if only they released more race specific terrain for those of us, without artistic talent, so we could make our gaming tables feel like warhammer. The Photo's of the mass battles in new rule book make me drool and wish I could have gaming tables like that.

Arnizipal
25-06-2010, 10:52
Insane adbot post and reponses removed from thread.
Nothing to see here... :shifty:

Arnizipal,

++ The Warseer Moderation Team ++

logan054
25-06-2010, 12:40
I think Eternus hit the nail on the head really, the one think i really like about 8th ed is that magic is good but you dont have to use it in order to stand a chane of winning a game! All these new missions sound very cool actually, i really look forward to trying them out because how many times can pitched battle be all that fun?

I think its great they are using the common items to plug holes in armies, WoC lack of wardsaves really come to mind, its great i can go back to using great weapons on mounted charaters, i love the buffs infantry have good, changes to fear, hell yes, makes alot of sense.

After reading all of these changes i dont really want to play and more 7th ed games, i just want the book out and to get cracking with the new edition!

Eternus
25-06-2010, 13:04
the one think i really like about 8th ed is that magic is good but you dont have to use it in order to stand a chane of winning a game!

This is exactly the kind of thing I am looking forward to - with what I hope will be fewer things perceived as 'game breaking' in the game, like VC armies with the worlds supply of power dice and terrible combos of DE magic items just as a couple of examples, there will almost always be hope.

No game should ever begin with one player looking across the table and knowing for certain they don't stand a chance and not a single die has yet been rolled in anger. We should always feel as though we have something to play for, at least for the first few turns or so. A game that is decided in the first turn, or even during deployment is never going to be very enjoyable, it's going to be boring, and unfortunately this is the extreme end of what 7th has become.

The best games are ones that are hard fought and could go either way until the last turn or two. Now Magic is less clinical, Characters have less decisive impact, and no unit or model is virtually invulnerable due to being able to kill everything in base to base contact before they strike back every time. The field has been somewhat levelled I think. Should be a far more exciting experience. The game will be less orchestrated, and Generals will have to think on their feet more because they cannot predict as accurately what will happen as they could in 7th.

Latro_
25-06-2010, 13:09
After i read some of the rules for terrain, like the temple of skulls etc... i think they will play a key part in bringing the fantasy vibe back into warhammer.

logan054
25-06-2010, 13:13
This is exactly the kind of thing I am looking forward to - with what I hope will be fewer things perceived as 'game breaking' in the game, like VC armies with the worlds supply of power dice and terrible combos of DE magic items just as a couple of examples, there will almost always be hope.

No game should ever begin with one player looking across the table and knowing for certain they don't stand a chance and not a single die has yet been rolled in anger. We should always feel as though we have something to play for, at least for the first few turns or so. A game that is decided in the first turn, or even during deployment is never going to be very enjoyable, it's going to be boring, and unfortunately this is the extreme end of what 7th has become.

I have been on the end of that mono Khorne mortals with scroll caddies vs 2nd gen slann and skink horde, dont know why i even bothered playing the game :( But you are right that is exactly why i stopped playing warhammer, i dont enjoy using 4 wizards and blasting the hell out of the other guy, loading up on Khorne knights or having massed gunfire (i have my blood ravens for that ;) ).


The best games are ones that are hard fought and could go either way until the last turn or two. Now Magic is less clinical, Characters have less decisive impact, and no unit or model is virtually invulnerable due to being able to kill everything in base to base contact before they strike back every time. The field has been somewhat levelled I think. Should be a far more exciting experience. The game will be less orchestrated, and Generals will have to think on their feet more because they cannot predict as accurately what will happen as they could in 7th.

I miss those types of games, again i agree with what you said, 8th ed looks to be a much more enjoyable game with far less deathstars.

Eternus
25-06-2010, 13:14
After i read some of the rules for terrain, like the temple of skulls etc... i think they will play a key part in bringing the fantasy vibe back into warhammer.

I like the way the effects of some terrain aren't decided until you venture too close. That way you can't plan whether you need to avoid or control them until it's too late!


8th ed looks to be a much more enjoyable game with far less deathstars.

It'll be intersting seeing how people do without them, or what new tricks people will come up with - I'm sure plenty of people will be trying to break 8th the second it's released. Here's to hoping they fail miserably.

The SkaerKrow
25-06-2010, 14:40
Hm. The spirit of Warhammer 8e seems to be "7e was too hard for young and casual players to grasp, let's remove all pretense of subtlety and strategy from the game."

To their credit, they've done a bang-up job of that. Warhammer 8e will be a better beer and pretzels game, but as a strategy game? It will be looking up a Candyland from here on out.

Sedge
25-06-2010, 14:50
Being a competive player and enjoying the tournment scene even I felt it was just getting too predictable. I fell out of the Warhammer mold for over a year. In that time I have played mainly WotR which to be fair is an excellent system but I miss the story of the Warhammer world. This edition has envigorated what was a predictible and frankly quite dull system. I'm going to give this system a go. If it lives up to half of what I have read I will be a very happy little gamer indeed.

Long live eighth, lets hope we don't break it as well.

Alathir
25-06-2010, 14:55
I'm so highly anticipating 8th edition that it has sucked all the fun out of my 7th edition games... I need that rulebook now!

Eternus
25-06-2010, 14:59
Hm. The spirit of Warhammer 8e seems to be "7e was too hard for young and casual players to grasp, let's remove all pretense of subtlety and strategy from the game."

To their credit, they've done a bang-up job of that. Warhammer 8e will be a better beer and pretzels game, but as a strategy game? It will be looking up a Candyland from here on out.

I fully appreciate why many people feel that the strategic element of the game has been diminished, and I don't feel that I have had enough contact with the new rules as yet to disagree, but I do hope that this turns out not to be the case. I hope we find that the strategic element is a strong as ever, it's just become a different animal that we need to fathom before we can really make a judgement.

I look forward to the debates that will follow the release of the book, which will allow more people to really examine the fine print.

willowdark
25-06-2010, 15:32
Hm. The spirit of Warhammer 8e seems to be "7e was too hard for young and casual players to grasp, let's remove all pretense of subtlety and strategy from the game."

To their credit, they've done a bang-up job of that. Warhammer 8e will be a better beer and pretzels game, but as a strategy game? It will be looking up a Candyland from here on out.


I fully appreciate why many people feel that the strategic element of the game has been diminished, and I don't feel that I have had enough contact with the new rules as yet to disagree, but I do hope that this turns out not to be the case. I hope we find that the strategic element is a strong as ever, it's just become a different animal that we need to fathom before we can really make a judgement.

I look forward to the debates that will follow the release of the book, which will allow more people to really examine the fine print.


The proof will most certainly be in the pudding. Personally, I think Steadfast, supportive attacks and removing kills from the back will just make infantry too powerful, especially when using the Gen's Ld and a BSB for those Steadfast tests. I'm worried that games will be decided by Stats and equipment much more than tactical execution.

I'm also worried that the extreme other end of the pendulum swing is that shooting and avoidance will be the best answer for armies that don't want to build big infantry blocks. I know the more I think about my DE the more I prefer shooting to big blocks of infantry, even though I have some of the best infantry in the game.

Bac5665
25-06-2010, 15:33
I have to say that I agree much more with SkaerKrow than with the feeling Eternus describes in the OP. 8E looks to me to be a large detriment to the game and hobby by removing the thought and skill required before.

I like the new magic mechanic (though its screaming out for rules for 3000+ point games) but the spells looks OTT. I like the new unit categories and clear writing, but the actual rules themselves make me cringe. Premeasuring? Random charges? Fight in two ranks? Fight in initiative order? Two ranks to break ranks? Step up? Not one of them has a positive effect on the game. Steadfast is ok, but is only necessary because units are too killy already.

I don't like scenarios, I don't like random effects upon entering terrain. I'm sorry if it bothers people who think I'm just whining, but Warhammer was my favorite, and the huge amount of changes to the game I hate worries me. I still have hope that the new game will be fun, but I have trouble seeing how.

I will agree that I can't wait to actually get the book and try it out; one way or another my book can't get here fast enough.

dragonet111
25-06-2010, 15:36
I have not seen the book yet and the only feedback I have is here on warseer but I have a good feeling with 8ed. We almost give up on Warhammer and focus on Warhammer 40000 but 8ed seems really fun.
We began with 5ed and it was pure fun and to me it seems that 8ed is as fun as 5ed was. I hope it will end up being true.:D

Razhem
25-06-2010, 16:35
I thought it was just an excuse to sell more little plastic and metal men.

And pretty much agree with willowdark, the future is rank heavy units that have a high armour save and can dish some pain. Hell, except in very small exceptions, I wouldn't even bother with horde formation, except on super killy cheap units. I don't see the interest in cav nor the interest in small units. Also, his shooty evasion his right on the spot, wood elves will go from melee skirmishers with some bows to massed bow evasion with some treesinging and skirmishers in forests to cover them.

willowdark
25-06-2010, 16:37
You called me 'pillowdark.' :)

MalusCalibur
25-06-2010, 16:41
After reading the articles in the latest White Dwarf, and listening to the first online commentary, it seems quite clear to me what the intention was with 8th edition. GW seem to be focussing very much on what makes Warhammer 'Warhammer'. It's as though they are reasserting Warhammers identity, it's individuality, and the whole idea of what it is to not just fight battles in the Warhammer World, but to live in the Warhammer World.

No offence meant to you, but all of that sounds like GW sales guff to me. Anything written about 8th in WD is going to be aimed at telling us all how great it is, and 'reasserting Warhammer's identity' sounds exactly like a sales pitch.


Listening to what they are saying, and they way the emphasis has moved from the game rules and mechanics to the hobby in it's entirety, I feel as though Warhammer is waking up, and realising that it is under threat from alternative systems, has donned it's armour, gripped it's hammer and is preparing to take on it's rivals.

To me, this translates as GW realising they're rapidly losing custom to other, less ludicrously priced, games, and thus trying as hard as possible to get more new players in with this release - adding credence to the theory that 8th is a 'dumbing down' of the rules as a whole.


Its positively electric. I feel like things like unusual scenario battles are soon to be the norm, rather than the exception because people will want to take the time to prepare for them where as at the minute (at our club at least) it's too easy to just say 'Yeah, just play Pitched Battle again', that Warhammer will be more exciting and dramatic than it has ever been, rather than feeling a little dry and clinical with all the focuss on rules rules rules and endless Listhammering and magic item combos all the time.

This is only true now, at the very outset of the edition. The competitive mentality of finding the powerlists/combos, and breaking the books, will return once those players have gotten the hang of the new rules. So I would imagine the 'listhammering' and such will not be gone from Warhammer for long.

I don't mean to direct any ill will towards the OP in this, but I can't help but feel that the 'Spirit of 8th edition' really is no different from the 'spirit' of any other edition, and any GW publication that attempts to dress it up otherwise is just sales patter. You are right that they're losing money to other games so they've made a drastic change to the rules to try and make them more accessible to new players, it's just that those changes are not universally liked. And they will still be losing players for the same reasons as before, because they do not address the issues that are actually a concern - or if they do, they go too far, and/or add in nonsensical changes as well that ruin the good ones.



Hm. The spirit of Warhammer 8e seems to be "7e was too hard for young and casual players to grasp, let's remove all pretense of subtlety and strategy from the game."

To their credit, they've done a bang-up job of that. Warhammer 8e will be a better beer and pretzels game, but as a strategy game? It will be looking up a Candyland from here on out.

In short, my sentiments exactly. Warhammer 8th might be a 'good' game in the eyes of some, but for me it isn't Warhammer any more. I think the balance between an overly competitive game that has had all the fun sucked out of it by over-analysis (I can think of at least two computer game series' that suffer from this), and a silly, 'beer and pretzels' game that doesn't require much (if any) thought to play or win, is a delicate one (neither extreme being desireable in the case of Warhammer). 7th may have been a touch too far in the former direction, but I think 8th is even moreso in the latter - which is an overall change I, and indeed many others, do not agree with.

Chiron
25-06-2010, 16:55
The number of special rules in the core book gives me hope we'll see less of a focus on special rules in supplements as was started with Wood Elves and continued on through the rest of the army books

willowdark
25-06-2010, 17:01
I never understood why people complain about special rules. The most effective way to make one army unique and to stand apart from every other is through special rules.

Razhem
25-06-2010, 17:03
You called me 'pillowdark.' :)

Brainfart. Edited :p

Chiron
25-06-2010, 17:05
I never understood why people complain about special rules. The most effective way to make one army unique and to stand apart from every other is through special rules.

I dont mind unique special rules in small quantities, but when most of the armies units have there own special rules that arent in the book then it becomes tiresome trying to keep track of who has what.

Avatar of the Eldar
25-06-2010, 17:24
Hm. The spirit of Warhammer 8e seems to be "7e was too hard for young and casual players to grasp, let's remove all pretense of subtlety and strategy from the game."

To their credit, they've done a bang-up job of that. Warhammer 8e will be a better beer and pretzels game, but as a strategy game? It will be looking up a Candyland from here on out.


I have to say that I agree much more with SkaerKrow than with the feeling Eternus describes in the OP. 8E looks to me to be a large detriment to the game and hobby by removing the thought and skill required before.

I like the new magic mechanic (though its screaming out for rules for 3000+ point games) but the spells looks OTT. I like the new unit categories and clear writing, but the actual rules themselves make me cringe. Premeasuring? Random charges? Fight in two ranks? Fight in initiative order? Two ranks to break ranks? Step up? Not one of them has a positive effect on the game. Steadfast is ok, but is only necessary because units are too killy already.

I don't like scenarios, I don't like random effects upon entering terrain. I'm sorry if it bothers people who think I'm just whining, but Warhammer was my favorite, and the huge amount of changes to the game I hate worries me. I still have hope that the new game will be fun, but I have trouble seeing how.

I will agree that I can't wait to actually get the book and try it out; one way or another my book can't get here fast enough.

There must be something in the water in Columbus, Ohio. :p


and a silly, 'beer and pretzels' game that doesn't require much (if any) thought to play or win, is a delicate one (neither extreme being desireable in the case of Warhammer). 7th may have been a touch too far in the former direction, but I think 8th is even moreso in the latter - which is an overall change I, and indeed many others, do not agree with.

And it's in the "southern UK" too.

I play with some of the hardest, hard-core tourney players in the US (I am not in their league, but they're my pards.) and they were all hard at it last night with 8th and they were doing plenty of thinking. Not one has voiced these opinions. Sure, there are some changes here or there (universal annoyance with TLOS) but they're taking it in stride, seem to appreciate many of the changes, and are clearly enjoying the new challenge of figuring it all out.

And yes, it won't be long before they've optimized all the best units and combos, reductio ad absurdum.

There are going to be some who are sad because it's just not to their tastes. It's not "bad", or "worse" or even simplistic. (Come on, Candyland, really?) It's just not what they're used to. Plus ca change...

Eternus
25-06-2010, 17:35
Without wanting to turn this into a nitty gritty about the rules, I would have thought that many of the changes, like Horde, Step Up, 2 Ranks to negate enemy ranks, Steadfast etc are all in favour of Core infantry, which for a long time lots of people have been saying needed to get a serious boost across the board to make them viable - isn't what we've now got? Many many people have complained about how dominant Magic was in 7th - that also has had it's overall influence reduced, as have individual characters.

These are all the kinds of things Threads have been posted about on Warseer for a long while - it seems to me that, in the main, we got kind of what we asked for didn't we? Yes they're trying to push bigger armies, more models, new players, but apart from that - which we can choose to ignore - 8th appears at first glance to have addressed many of the issues people have said existed within 7th.

Finally, a quick point on Random Charging - it only applies when charging, so as long as people are hedging their bets and declaring charges from a distance they can be confident isn't too far away from the enemy, the skill of the movement phase hasn't changed one bit.

I wish they'd hurry up and send me my damn book already!! ;)

Odin
25-06-2010, 17:52
I haven't been this excited about Warhammer since reading the Lost and the Damned for the first time.

willowdark
25-06-2010, 18:18
I just don't see what's so exciting about footsloggers.

Now, skirmisher guerillas, heavy cav, dragons, stegs, wizard confederations and slamming the flank with anything bigger than a person really got me pumped up.

With the very specific exception of Bloodthirsters there wasn't anything in 7th that was powerful that I didn't view as a challenge to rise up to, that made the game not only exciting but dynamic.

I can't help but think the buffs to infantry will go too far.

In 7th, I'd hit one unit with the goal of punching through it and hitting the unit behind it. The challenge was to do that from enough angles that multiple units would hit that same target behind the lines through multiple targets, while countering my opponents attempts to do the same.

In 8th, I see combat being joined quickly but taking too long to resolve. If every unit needs to be killed to a man because infantry has so many buffs that it's insulated from breaking, I wonder if surrounding the enemy will just set you up to be surrounded.

enygma7
25-06-2010, 18:28
I would say that the fact only a small proportion of the new rulebook is actually rules is a good indication of this new "spirit of warhammer". There is a huge background section and significant space given over to scenario play, GMed games, narratives and campaigns, conversions and modelling... A cynic could say this is to make people also buy the mini rulebook when it gets released in a few months, but its also true that the new "rule" book is about the hobbey as a whole, not just a new rules system (which does itself do a considerable ammount to rebalance the game away from previous competetive power builds and hopefully towards more background compatable lists).

Bac5665
25-06-2010, 18:34
There must be something in the water in Columbus, Ohio. :p



And it's in the "southern UK" too.

I play with some of the hardest, hard-core tourney players in the US (I am not in their league, but they're my pards.) and they were all hard at it last night with 8th and they were doing plenty of thinking. Not one has voiced these opinions. Sure, there are some changes here or there (universal annoyance with TLOS) but they're taking it in stride, seem to appreciate many of the changes, and are clearly enjoying the new challenge of figuring it all out.

And yes, it won't be long before they've optimized all the best units and combos, reductio ad absurdum.

There are going to be some who are sad because it's just not to their tastes. It's not "bad", or "worse" or even simplistic. (Come on, Candyland, really?) It's just not what they're used to. Plus ca change...

If course they're thinking now, its new and plenty of thought is necessary to find the new power builds. There are too many changes to come up with the new power builds without playing at least some. Come back in a month and tell me how hard they are thinking.

blackjack
25-06-2010, 18:36
With the dumbing down, the game of manuver is gone in 8th. The tactical chess match of trying to get the charge, redirecting, flank attacks, all seem much less important in this edition.

It seems like a huge sumo match between massive blocks of infantry now. I consider myself a tactical player and this edition really distains tactics. I am planning to try it out but if it's a dumbed down as it seems I may as well play 40k.

CrystalSphere
25-06-2010, 18:59
After a few games this week i feel like the game has been dumbed down a lot, and the only reason i can come up to keep playing it is because iīve already invested a lot of time, money and effort in the armies i have. I may try a few games more before i decide what to do, but i am quite disappointed so far.

willowdark
25-06-2010, 19:20
If course they're thinking now, its new and plenty of thought is necessary to find the new power builds. There are too many changes to come up with the new power builds without playing at least some. Come back in a month and tell me how hard they are thinking.

This rings true, in the long run at least.

The more games we play the more often we'll see units slam into combat and get stuck there for most of the game - the more we'll come to learn that very little is actually happening in the game and there is a lot less 4 dimensional visualization and just more dice rolling.

Sedge
25-06-2010, 22:07
Chill guys. When you actually play 8th you might just like it. Yes we spend a LOT of time and money on our hobby so we all feel that we have a personal 'stake' in the game but it is suposed to be a reason to get together with your friends and have some fun.

We will still be able to be competitive with our armies just in a different way with units that used to be pants; men at arms, halberdiers, ogre armies etc the list goes on.

pointyteeth
25-06-2010, 23:01
I haven't yet had my sticky little hands on the rulebook, but I definately get the vibe Eternus is talking about. Really can't wait to start playing some games in 8th! I've been in Fantasy since 3rd edition and this is certainly harking back to its roots.

Is it dumbing Warhammer down? IMO, no. Is it simplifying rules? IMO, yes. Making the rules easier to understand isn't taking the strategy and tactics out of the game (unless strategy and tactics is defined as "having a better memory and understanding of 100+ pages of rules than my opponent"), its reinventing the game. If massive amounts of study and calculation are required for your enjoyment of the game, perhaps university would be a better hobby for you (It probably costs the same as Warhammer :p)

Volker the Mad Fiddler
25-06-2010, 23:05
I haven't yet had my sticky little hands on the rulebook, but I definately get the vibe Eternus is talking about. Really can't wait to start playing some games in 8th! I've been in Fantasy since 3rd edition and this is certainly harking back to its roots.

Is it dumbing Warhammer down? IMO, no. Is it simplifying rules? IMO, yes. Making the rules easier to understand isn't taking the strategy and tactics out of the game (unless strategy and tactics is defined as "having a better memory and understanding of 100+ pages of rules than my opponent"), its reinventing the game. If massive amounts of study and calculation are required for your enjoyment of the game, perhaps university would be a better hobby for you (It probably costs the same as Warhammer :p)

Actually, I think it is cheaper.

MalusCalibur
25-06-2010, 23:15
...not just a new rules system (which does itself do a considerable ammount to rebalance the game away from previous competetive power builds and hopefully towards more background compatable lists).

I have to disagree here. While it may have a small effect on reducing the *current* power builds (and from what I understand, it hasn't that much), it certainly won't push armies towards 'background compatible' lists, at least among the competitive types. There will be new power builds, new 'uber' lists that dominate the others, and the 'background' lists will once again be relegated to those that choose to make them. Right now everything might seem rosy, but eventually the powerlists will start to emerge again.

I'm not saying that's what I'd *want* to happen, but you can bet that it will.



Chill guys. When you actually play 8th you might just like it. Yes we spend a LOT of time and money on our hobby so we all feel that we have a personal 'stake' in the game but it is suposed to be a reason to get together with your friends and have some fun.

In my case, that first statement would be false. I'm aware it's cardinal sin around here to say one does not intend to even try 8th edition, but that is unfortunately my stance on it - I have no interest in it. The rules and changes that I have the biggest concern with are still going to bother and annoy me whether I play the game or not, so I see little reason to invest the time or money in doing so.


We will still be able to be competitive with our armies just in a different way with units that used to be pants; men at arms, halberdiers, ogre armies etc the list goes on.

Yes, some units that were crap before will become excellent. And, conversely, units that were great before will become crap. It's the same thing that happens every edition, and it just shifts the balance, not improves it. Case in point, Dryads (or indeed, any combat skirmishers). I'd be willing to bet that the number of units that start appearing in lists will match, if not be exceeded by, the number that will stop appearing.

Badger[Fr]
25-06-2010, 23:33
While it's too early to accurately judge 8th Edition's worth, I already know that I won't miss 7th. The core rules were terribly unbalanced to begin with, be it casualty removal, power dice, or Fear / Terror.

I still remember how tens of 40k rabid fanboys claimed 5th Edition would destroy the game, and it turned out to be more tactical and well balanced than its previous counterparts.

Arasaka
25-06-2010, 23:35
No game should ever begin with one player looking across the table and knowing for certain they don't stand a chance and not a single die has yet been rolled in anger. We should always feel as though we have something to play for, at least for the first few turns or so. A game that is decided in the first turn, or even during deployment is never going to be very enjoyable, it's going to be boring, and unfortunately this is the extreme end of what 7th has become.

Well said, and I agree entirely.

Unfortunately, good core rules can be undone by a bad army book (or books).

GW seem to be off to a good start rules-wise, but after 20+ years of GW games I expect them to trip up not long after with the Army Books. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong, however.

indytims
26-06-2010, 00:26
From what I've read so far, I think 8th ed will be a great step FORWARD for the Warhammer FB game.

Of course, I'll need a dozen or so games under my belt before I firmly decide which way I lean, but right now, I have no plans to play 7th any further, and am focused solely on 8th.

I definitely empathize with the OP. I really love a LOT of what I see so far. :)

-Tim

Sebavin
26-06-2010, 00:48
There are a few things that bother me that people are kind of complaining about when it comes to rules changes. :eyebrows:
Step up- It makes sense you aren't gonna stand there while the guy in front of you dies miserably.
Missions- Playing the same damn things gets boring if you don't like it don't play the mission.
Lastly is pre-measuring- OK LOTR has pre-measuring and even though it has that it is still one if not the most tactual game in GW stores (IMO). Just cause you can doesn't mean you will tbh and it is much easier to spot Jerk players since they will most likely spam this rule.
I am just saying instead of being worried about how 8th will be different, just except it cause that is what is gonna happen. Why don't people who think the game will be less tactical and no more a competitive game (which again imo is the opposite) just try to... now I know this is forbidden to say to some people, but why don't they just have fun playing the game??? :angel:

Avatar of the Eldar
26-06-2010, 01:42
If course they're thinking now, its new and plenty of thought is necessary to find the new power builds. There are too many changes to come up with the new power builds without playing at least some. Come back in a month and tell me how hard they are thinking.

Maybe I will, Milhouse. Maybe I will.

Sygerrik
26-06-2010, 01:59
I have heard a lot of neckbeardy whinging about how the game is too "easy," as if the mangled and opaque 7E core rules were some kind of velvet rope that screened of the n00bs from the true wargaming elite.

I have nothing but praise for 8E's changes. It feels like we're playing a real strategy wargame again, not a protracted session of rock/paper/scissors that forced cookie cutter builds on everyone. I know gamers as a whole are more resistant to change than a malfunctioning vending machine but after seeing what 7E did to my beloved hobby, this is like a loved one's cancer going into sudden remission.

Gonzoyola
26-06-2010, 02:18
Yea i love when people act like 7th was so tactical, because it was really hard for me to throw blocks of skeletons into people and just attrition until i auto break them from fear outnumber, or suddenly, a whole army runs off of the board because of the very same "dice rolls" that people are saying will kill this edition. Im sorry but my Beastlord would lay a long yellow stream on a unit of warhounds before he would let them panic him. This unit will not be all powerful and infallible but it will be a major improvement, in fun, and in competition

Sebavin
26-06-2010, 02:48
Yes, that is it this edition seems to favor all units on all or most levels (meh on skirmishers)... No more 5 chaos knights run into a block of 30 Empire spearmen and make them break first round cause for some reason the rules of 7th ed say the guys in the back just sit there while there buddies are killed... never made sense and took the fun out of most games, let 7th ed burn for 8th is the edition of the people!

Llew
26-06-2010, 03:24
I suspect the bulk of resistance comes from people who have become so set in their ways and so reliant upon their ability to guess ranges to lead them to victory, that they can't possibly see how a game that doesn't rely on their tried-and-true strategems could still be tactically rich and engaging while *still* being easy for a new player to pick up.

7th Ed was (discounting certain armies that were just moronically easy to win with) an exercise in applying knowledge of arcane minutiae of the rules-system in order to win. Most of those applications were not terribly intuitive and required someone to have an intimate knowledge of generally bizarre stuff that was built into the rules model. It was not an exercise in tactics. It was an exercise in rulesmanship. These are actually different things.

8th Ed appears to be (so far) a more balanced game where units will react more like you would expect them to if you didn't know anything about the game. You would expect basic infantry to be able to stand up for a little while, but you'd certainly need to support them. It moves towards keeping cavalry valuable while still giving a nod to the fact that infantry ruled the battlefield. It encourages big units, and those big units give some benefit to the fielder, not to the foe who gets a 5-knight charge off. The random charge ranges model battlefield uncertainty far better than the range guessing system. I still have not heard one credible explanation of how having to weigh each enemy unit as "threat/not a threat" is somehow more tactically complex than having to weigh each one based on a sliding liklihood of how dangerous a threat they are.

I can certainly understand how some people are mad their game is changing. But a lot of those people and the way they play are one of the reasons WFB is having trouble attracting new players. No one enjoys a first game where their teacher basically pulls out tons of strange, non-intuitive rules and uses them to show the newb just how much they have to learn before they can be a "real" WFB player.

GW positively *had* to find some way to make the game more accessible to new players and players who don't thrive off memorizing hundreds of pages of badly-worded rules over a stack of army books. These changes are actually the first indication I've seen that GW realizes it is losing players and needs to find some way to make itself appeal to new gamers. Don't get me wrong: this wasn't altruism by GW wishing to spread the joy of gaming to the masses for the sheer joy of it - -they want to sell miniatures. They need new bodies to buy them if they have any hope of getting the company righted again.

If GW issued an 8th edition that was incredibly similar to 7th, it would have been one more step towards utter irrelevance. At least they're making an attempt to change this.

Aluinn
26-06-2010, 03:54
I'm excited about it. I guess that should be obvious because it motivated me to finally start posting on Warseer :). I think whatever else you may say about it, it will definitely result in closer games, and those are always far and away the most fun to me. Those are the times I truly don't care whether I win or lose. The only loss that ever makes me mad is the one where I feel like I never had a chance to begin with.

Now, I'm sure there will be new power builds, and a after a few months the community will more or less reach a consensus on some tier-based army-ranking system, but I think that even games where one army has a big advantage will allow the underdog to inflict some pain and that they'll have a few more chances than they might have in 7th to turn it around. No rules system can abolish powergaming, so the ideal is one that minimizes its impact.

Basically I think the result will be that people running new power lists achieve a few less wins, a few more draws, and about the same number of losses, but more of their games will be close and actually fun for their more casual opponents whatever the final outcome.

UberBeast
26-06-2010, 04:45
I'm going to get negative here so forgive:

I think GW is just trying to blow a bunch of smoke up our *****. There was way more interesting stuff going on in the generals copendium and they didn't need to butcher the game that people have loved for years.

GW has done a terrible thing to many of its loyal fans. They haven't just redesigned the game, they have literally shoved their grubby hands right through it's chest and ripped the heart out of it. It's like changing chess to checkers, wrapping it up in a fancy new package, and then making a bunch of wild promises and exciting claims to cover the butchery they have comitted.

I'm happy for those of you who are able to welcome the changes and will enjoy playing the 8th edition, but I'm pissed off with the complete lack of respect, foresight, and stewardship that GW is showing to the greatest table-top wargame of all time. Fancy bling, giant rulebooks, and lots of cheap talk do not distact me from the fact that the game is no longer something I want to play.

Orangecoke
26-06-2010, 05:09
Great post, Llew!

In the past every time I've started down the path of getting into 7th Ed, I always encountered so much talk of horrible imbalance. Then I'd sit down with the rules and - especially after the clear and fluid rules of war machine - frankly get kinda befuddled. Moving units sounded absolutely laborious. The game didn't sound fun.

I picked up war of the ring and had a lot of fun with it but there were too many ambiguities in the rules and it caused my group to lose interest eventually.

What I've read so far about 8th has me very excited. It sounds fun, fast and fluid. I'm already well into painting an army for it. I know some vets will leave because of the changes, but I bet many more will start playing. At my office there's 5 of us who are ready to jump on board ( till now mostly war machine and 40k players).

I'm actually impressed GW had the guts to tear things down and rebuild the game to be more fun.

Ultimate Life Form
26-06-2010, 05:11
I'm going to get negative here so forgive:

I think GW is just trying to blow a bunch of smoke up our *****. There was way more interesting stuff going on in the generals copendium and they didn't need to butcher the game that people have loved for years.

GW has done a terrible thing to many of its loyal fans. They haven't just redesigned the game, they have literally shoved their grubby hands right through it's chest and ripped the heart out of it. It's like changing chess to checkers, wrapping it up in a fancy new package, and then making a bunch of wild promises and exciting claims to cover the butchery they have comitted.

I'm happy for those of you who are able to welcome the changes and will enjoy playing the 8th edition, but I'm pissed off with the complete lack of respect, foresight, and stewardship that GW is showing to the greatest table-top wargame of all time. Fancy bling, giant rulebooks, and lots of cheap talk do not distact me from the fact that the game is no longer something I want to play.
Depends on what you see as the heart of the game. If to you Warhammer was all about being able to guess fractions of an inch then yes, I admit you don't have any future in the game.

To me they have put meat on the bare and bleak bones of the clunky undead construct that was 7th Ed rules. And I really don't understand the reasoning of the people who now suddenly pop up claiming 7th was the most popular incarnation of the game ever and the epitome of perfection. All I heard here in the last two years is constant whining so it can't have been that great.

You're free to leave of course and we won't stop you, but before throwing everything away you should think about why you started in the first place and what kept you in, and if these things can't still be found in the new game.

Lord Solar Plexus
26-06-2010, 06:46
After reading the articles in the latest White Dwarf, and listening to the first online commentary, it seems quite clear to me what the intention was with 8th edition.

Well, seeing as there are only ads and some PR pieces in the latest WD, it seems quite clear to me that the intention was to increase revenue.

chilledenuff
26-06-2010, 08:03
Well, seeing as there are only ads and some PR pieces in the latest WD.

surely you mean every WD, right? :D

8th is going to be great, I've already put my copy of 7th onto the shelf to gather dust and I'm planning to go into my local hobby store to read the army list mechanics so I can build some cool 'gobbo lists!

Allonairre
26-06-2010, 08:44
I am extremely excited about 8th edition, because 7th was too similar too 6th and and we have gone a very long time with basically the same rule set.

I don't think however that the rules in 8th are better. I have only filicked through the rule book and I can see a bit of how my games will go. While I love having games that are not decided until the last turns I don't think that 8th will make this more or less likely, I think that you are more likely to lose a game to rubbish luck than anything else.

This is only speculation but is losing a game to a L1 mage that rolled irresistable force (on a single insanely overpowered spell) a satisfactory loss, or because your flanking force of cavalry are outcharged by an enemy that rolls 12 and charges 16". I don't like luck, almost anyone can win a game of yahtzee but that doesn't mean that it is enjoyable.

I am not saying that 8th ed. Warhammer will be anything like Yahtzee, as I said I am very psyched about playing the new edition. It poses new challenges and I am someone who really enjoys trying to solve those problems. To work out how to consistently beat the odds with my army, I like playing listhammer as well but only from a perspective of how could I get my army to deal with this. This probably makes me a bad warhammer player in many peoples eyes.

In closing please reserve praise for GW until they have released the army books, 7th was fine (a bit dull maybe) but the army books destroyed all balance. I can see Brettonians coming out, an all cavalry army up against what is an extremely infantry focused core ruleset, they are either going to suck (when played in character) or get some funky as special rules.

fluffstalker
26-06-2010, 09:41
I have heard a lot of neckbeardy whinging about how the game is too "easy," as if the mangled and opaque 7E core rules were some kind of velvet rope that screened of the n00bs from the true wargaming elite.

I have nothing but praise for 8E's changes. It feels like we're playing a real strategy wargame again, not a protracted session of rock/paper/scissors that forced cookie cutter builds on everyone. I know gamers as a whole are more resistant to change than a malfunctioning vending machine but after seeing what 7E did to my beloved hobby, this is like a loved one's cancer going into sudden remission.

I would put this in my sig but I think its too long.

Mudkip
26-06-2010, 11:46
My experience in a reasonably competitive, metagame-aware gaming group, is that people have been growing quite weary of the status quo in Warhammer for many months now. Warhammer was quickly becoming quite tedious and stale. I'm convinced 8th edition will be a breath of fresh air which will reinvigorate the game. Some people are resistant to change and pessimistic but after a month or two beyond release I suspect we'll hear no more about it. Many of the people declaring Warhammer is "a game they no longer want to play" (I suppose the classic "GW better change everything for me or I'm leaving!" has become unfashionable) will probably still be here posting away.

And so the world turns. There's a reason why this message board is often sneered at ("I was over at Whineseer lol :rolleyes:") when mentioned elsewhere. It's also amusing to note the substantial difference between general discussion and tactics, I guess the old adage is true, "general is for whining, tactics is for discussion".

Ultimate Life Form
26-06-2010, 12:03
The spirit of Warhammer may change, but the spirit of WarSeer does not.

BigBossOgryn
26-06-2010, 12:26
See, I can understand where a lot of the negativity towards 8th is coming from because I echoed these arguments when 40K 5th was coming out.

'*********** GW, what the **** is this bag of ****? Thanks for making my Orks suck. **** this game'.

That was the gist of a conversation I had with a friend just as the new book hit the shelf. All these new rules, streamlining and such. Then I realized that I was being an idiot about this. I remembered that I played because it was fun. It got me introduced to a lot of people and 90% of my circle of friends are there because of the hobby. So I did a big thing. I understood that if I was going to carry on expanding my gaming experience by going to tournaments either GW or Indie, I had to accept the change. I threw out everything I thought I knew about the game along with my army lists and learnt it anew. I haven't looked back to any previous edition since.

I'm not going to sit here and say that 'everyone should play 8th otherwise you are whiners and elitist' nor will I say that peoples concerns are ill-founded but then without the playing the game it's impossible to be sure. What I am saying is give yourselves a chance to adapt, learn the game anew and approach it with a fresh head. The game is supposed to be about having a laugh with friends and fellow gamers in a competitive environment and going out there to meet new people too, don't cheat yourselves out of the hobby as a whole because of an unwillingness to try something new.

Eternus
26-06-2010, 13:01
I'm not going to sit here and say that 'everyone should play 8th otherwise you are whiners and elitist' nor will I say that peoples concerns are ill-founded but then without the playing the game it's impossible to be sure. What I am saying is give yourselves a chance to adapt, learn the game anew and approach it with a fresh head. The game is supposed to be about having a laugh with friends and fellow gamers in a competitive environment and going out there to meet new people too, don't cheat yourselves out of the hobby as a whole because of an unwillingness to try something new.

Spot on. The simple fact is that the only person who can really ruin the hobby for me, is me. I can choose to dislike certain aspects of the new edition, or I can do what I've done for the last 4 Editions of Fantasy and 40K - I can remember why I like playing these games in the first place, and why other companies games really don't hold the same appeal for me.

I recently had a quick chat with the guy that runs my local stockist about Warmachine, and I asked him a bit about gameplay but more about background because that is what gives Fantasy and 40K long term appeal to me, and he said essentially that, partly because Fantasy and 40K have been around for a good spell of time now, that Warmachine's background doesn't compare. I need a game that has a decent rules set, but excellent background, because that is what keeps my attention.

Good luck everybody.

logan054
26-06-2010, 13:29
It'll be intersting seeing how people do without them, or what new tricks people will come up with - I'm sure plenty of people will be trying to break 8th the second it's released. Here's to hoping they fail miserably.

I have a feelin that those that used death stars might well true very large units of cheap troops with a front rank of cheap characters, that or spam warmachines and missile troops. I do think however that 8th ed might be the edition that gets me going to tournaments again, atleast for the first few years anyways lol.


I haven't been this excited about Warhammer since reading the Lost and the Damned for the first time.

I dont think i have been this excited about warhammer since realm of chaos, now that was one very cool box for Chaos, all those cards, if only 8th ed chaos could be more like that just with rules for mixing, fingers crossed ;)


Without wanting to turn this into a nitty gritty about the rules, I would have thought that many of the changes, like Horde, Step Up, 2 Ranks to negate enemy ranks, Steadfast etc are all in favour of Core infantry, which for a long time lots of people have been saying needed to get a serious boost across the board to make them viable - isn't what we've now got? Many many people have complained about how dominant Magic was in 7th - that also has had it's overall influence reduced, as have individual characters.

These are all the kinds of things Threads have been posted about on Warseer for a long while - it seems to me that, in the main, we got kind of what we asked for didn't we? Yes they're trying to push bigger armies, more models, new players, but apart from that - which we can choose to ignore - 8th appears at first glance to have addressed many of the issues people have said existed within 7th.

Basically what you have is people who just buy a army to smash people with at Tournaments and those who buy models because they like them and enjoy having a beer, guess which ones are complaining about the changes ;) I dont mind these changes simply because i play against a broader sprectrum of players and still using my Mono Khorne infantry army or what ever list i decide to field, the army i have to buy stuff for to make it legal for 8th is my DE which i never did fnish anyways lol.

Galatan
26-06-2010, 13:31
Actually, I think it is cheaper.

Than uni?:wtf: How much do you spend each year on warhammer? Because my uni costs 1700 a year (excluding books) and I'm sure as hell certain I'm not spending THAT much on my hobby....


Back to the topic: Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with some threads, but hey you can't satisfy everybody so guess all is fair. Everybody is free to have their opinion, but sometimes I wonder how some people become so cynical/sceptical about everything GW does.

One thing I know for sure is that I haven't been so excited about fantasy in years. I might even reinvigorate my lizardmen and skaven army's. I have enjoyed this hobby since 5th fantasy and 2nd 40k and I sure am gonna enjoy 8th.

As BogBossOgryn said, 5th ed 40k also received a lot of negative comments about it being made simpeler and all that kinda stuff, but it really hasn't, it's just a little different and I still enjoy it alot. If a game like chess and checkers can have extensive strategies and whatnot, then why can't 8th?

Bottom line: I totally agree with Eternal, BigBossOgryn and ULF

yabbadabba
26-06-2010, 13:47
to those who claim that GW have torn up and destroyed a game they have loved for so long - the phrase "8th Ed" might give you a clue to the precendent being set long ago. Don't fear change, embrace it.

This edition won't stop power gamers. It won't eliminate tournament gamers. In these categories the ones who become the best will be the ones who can apply themselves with as much rigour as they did in 6th and 7th. What the rulebook might give us is some indication if the non-tournament gamers, the background gamers, the campaign gamers might have more to look forward, as that has been missing from the WFB hobby for a very, very long time. Here is a quote I wrote from another thread (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261733&page=4):
"For me 6th - 7th has seen some of the worst abuses of the game ethics and environment ever. A ridiculous rise of RAW vs RAI over fun, the infantilisation of the culture as well as the over-obsessiveness of the detail. Lame and Hate have become words to use to counter the spirit of the game. The ever present stone-around-the-neck that is math hammer. To assure a win excuses any abuse, yet to lose is an excuse to abuse your opponent for being "cheesy". The tournament culture is a minority but it has become an now undesired vuvuzela in the orchestra of wargaming. Canon has become a tool to marginalise, penalise and bully. The worst of it is it has seen GW drift away from a design philosophy that allowed every type of gamer to have fun without massive need for support or clarification, to an overly bureaucratic, centralised and central driven, reactionary mess.

You and I both know that GW has two games that really are ideal, tactically complex, rules simple, tournament friendly games - Epic and Warmaster. WFB should always be seen as the start of a fantastic, fantasy journey as all of GW's "core games" should be. What Gw writes - rules, background etc - should be the beginning, not the be all and end all. I hope that 8th ends the welfare state of the heart and soul of fantasy wargaming that 6th and 7th have appeared to have created."

Rather than live in an equal synergy, the game over 5th to 6th and 7th started to focus far too much on the competitive nature of the game. When people start to criticise GW battle reports for having uncompetitive armies featuring in them, then you know its gone too far. Its not the rules - we all know GW can mess that up with a single army book or FAQ, its the culture that needs to shift more over to the creative side from the competitive side. I will not criticise players for having a need to stick to any form of the game, its their choice (although I will say if you haven't played it then really you cannot criticise any edition), but I will say that even though the math hammer addicts will try and take this apart without playing a game, play for a year and in different formats before deciding yes or no.

Bac5665
26-06-2010, 14:15
For those saying that the game was "too competitive" or whatever spin you'd like to give, and that it should be about pretty models and beer, I just want to say this;

In 7E, I could go around and play my tournaments with a solid tactical game, AND you could make relaxed lists, taking what you want, playing how you want and drink beer. Nothing stopped you in 7E from playing with scenarios and common goblins and such. If you think playing with 2 hydras makes you a dick, you had the power to stop it by not playing with or against that kind of list. In 7E, everyone could be happy.

In 8E, only the people who want a beer and pretzels game will be happy. The tactical, precise, inching game that yes, many of us really did like, is gone completely. The only thing that's left is the beer and pretzel game that WAS THERE ALREADY. All you had to do was make lists with beer and pretzel gaming in mind, just like tourney players makes lists with wining in mind.

In 7E, the game was what you made it. It could be different things to different people. In 8E, the game is a beer a pretzels and game, and if you don't like sodium, screw you.

That's my problem with 8E. GW is making the beer and pretzel gaming the default in 8E, like tactical playing was the default in 7E. The difference is that in 8E, tactical playing will be gone, and the ability of the player to make the game what they want, diminished.

SeaSwift
26-06-2010, 14:35
In 8E, only the people who want a beer and pretzels game will be happy. The tactical, precise, inching game that yes, many of us really did like, is gone completely.

Tactical gaming isn't going to be gone - as previously mentioned, it will be more about gaming leadership, rather than RaI vs RaW, or 'gamey' abuse of rules/features that shouldn't have been there. Many of the rules were just clunky (Movement phase took far longer than it should).

If you don't like the new Edition, and think 7th was fine, then play that. No need for this complaining that 8th only satisfied one facet, and 7th covered all. If 7th covered all, then you and other people who like more 'precise, inching' games can play that when you want to, and play the 8th 'beer and pretzels' game when you want to (which serves beer and pretzel style better than 7th, by a mile). I'm not saying 'screw you' or whatever, I'm just saying that if you thought 7th was the best, play 7th!

Lastly, to use your Hydra example, you can still take 2 Hydras in a 2250pt list, they just won't be as good as before, the vast differences in power between Army Books seems to have shrunk (even Wood Elves, the hardest hit apart from the soon-to-be updated Tomb Kings, will still be more playable than Ogre Kingdoms before).

Chiron
26-06-2010, 14:39
I'm looking forward to less discussions and debates of "OMG THAT IS TOTALLY 1/8th OF AN INCH IN RANGE!" in terms of charges/shooting

rtunian
26-06-2010, 14:43
The difference is that in 8E, tactical playing will be gone, and the ability of the player to make the game what they want, diminished.

this is strictly untrue on both counts.

what will be gone from 8th ed is not tactical play, but guaranteed results. you will still set up tactically and try to get the best position. sometimes you will fail though, for reasons beyond your control. tactical play will still be important, but it will no longer guarantee success.

also, the players will always be able to make up their own warhammer. this will never be diminished. there is no page at the front of the book saying "these are the rules and you must always obey them, even if you and your friends don't want to!". there is no games police who will give you a citation for playing w/o new terrain rules or charge rules. i'm sure you've heard of the term, "house rules"? if it was okay for everyone who was dissatisfied with the 7th ed rules to "just house rule it", then it's fine for everyone who will be dissatisfied with the 8th ed rules as well.

indytims
26-06-2010, 14:54
this is strictly untrue on both counts.

what will be gone from 8th ed is not tactical play, but guaranteed results. you will still set up tactically and try to get the best position. sometimes you will fail though, for reasons beyond your control. tactical play will still be important, but it will no longer guarantee success.

also, the players will always be able to make up their own warhammer. this will never be diminished. there is no page at the front of the book saying "these are the rules and you must always obey them, even if you and your friends don't want to!". there is no games police who will give you a citation for playing w/o new terrain rules or charge rules. i'm sure you've heard of the term, "house rules"? if it was okay for everyone who was dissatisfied with the 7th ed rules to "just house rule it", then it's fine for everyone who will be dissatisfied with the 8th ed rules as well.

Agreed 100% on all accounts. Nice post. :)

The tactics in 8th will simply be different. Again, some people don't like that word (or "Change"), but them's the breaks. This series of events happens with most every edition of a new game system.

Adapt, stick with a previous edition you prefer, or move on.

GodlessM
26-06-2010, 15:11
this is strictly untrue on both counts.

what will be gone from 8th ed is not tactical play, but guaranteed results.

Very well put. As many have pointed out, things like random charges actually takes more tactics and strategy to play effectively, as you don't have certainty as a safety net. What logan says about the WAAC players generally being the ones to whine is partly true, but moreso the players that are complaining about lack of tactics seem to just be mainly concerned because they can't adapt their own tactics.

MalusCalibur
26-06-2010, 15:20
I have heard a lot of neckbeardy whinging about how the game is too "easy," as if the mangled and opaque 7E core rules were some kind of velvet rope that screened of the n00bs from the true wargaming elite.

What was 'mangled' and 'opaque' about them? This is the constantly repeated mantra that I cannot understand at all. As far as I see it, the old *core* rules were fine - the army books were what started 7th's downfall, since power creep got out of control (and Matt Ward was allowed to write books). This sudden uproar of '7th's core rules were awful' has only been prevalent since 8th's rumours became solid, and I can't help but feel that those who like the changes are taking the opportunity to put down the old game at every opportunity, even in places it does not deserve it.


I have nothing but praise for 8E's changes. It feels like we're playing a real strategy wargame again, not a protracted session of rock/paper/scissors that forced cookie cutter builds on everyone.

Who was forcing you to use 'cookie cutter' builds? Your army is your own, and what you use in it should be down to you. Who cares if there's a power build for your army? You don't *have* to use it.



I suspect the bulk of resistance comes from people who have become so set in their ways and so reliant upon their ability to guess ranges to lead them to victory, that they can't possibly see how a game that doesn't rely on their tried-and-true strategems could still be tactically rich and engaging while *still* being easy for a new player to pick up.

While I don't disagree that there will be some like that, to write off the majority of non-supporters as such is a dreadful sweeping statement, and is exactly the kind of elitism that is putting me further off 8th. As it happens, I'm not that great at judging distances, but I prefer it as a game mechanic because if I'm wrong, the fault is entirely my own - one of the few parts of the game that can never be the dice's fault.


7th Ed was (discounting certain armies that were just moronically easy to win with) an exercise in applying knowledge of arcane minutiae of the rules-system in order to win. Most of those applications were not terribly intuitive and required someone to have an intimate knowledge of generally bizarre stuff that was built into the rules model.

Perhaps you could give an example of this 'non-intuitive minutiae'? As I cannot think of any part of the rules that didn't become intuitive very fast. I can't help but feel this paragraph is saying 'To play 7th you needed to know the rules'. Well, yes, one might expect that.


It encourages big units, and those big units give some benefit to the fielder, not to the foe who gets a 5-knight charge off.

There's also another, non-game (or even player) related benefit that I strongly suspect was the main reason for that encouragement. But I digress.


The random charge ranges model battlefield uncertainty far better than the range guessing system.

And yet allowing measuring of any distance at any time models an unrealistic, godlike knowledge of the battlefield. If you're going to praise random charges as more realistic, you can't then conveniently ignore the complete lack of realism in the game as a whole.


I still have not heard one credible explanation of how having to weigh each enemy unit as "threat/not a threat" is somehow more tactically complex than having to weigh each one based on a sliding liklihood of how dangerous a threat they are.

In the same vein that I have not heard a single credible explanation as to how knowing probabilities and rolling dice is any more of a skill than estimating a distance - but again, at least the latter is entirely down to the ability of the player.


If GW issued an 8th edition that was incredibly similar to 7th, it would have been one more step towards utter irrelevance. At least they're making an attempt to change this.

If they had kept the core of the rules the same and made the neccesary changes without the needless ones, there wouldn't be any complaints from me. For example, stepping up, fighting in I order, new basic magic rules and shooting in two ranks, are good changes. Random charges, vastly reduced charging significance (to the point of almost irrelevance), mangled skirmishers, 'every-lore-gets-an-uber-spell', premeasuring, random terrain effects, and Steadfast (and I'm sure there are more I can't think of offhand), are bad changes, or badly executed at the least. Each new edition is supposed to improve on the previous one, and you don't always need a drastic rewrite to do that - look at the last three editions of 40K, for example.

If they wanted to 'start afresh' and rewrite everything from scratch, they should have had the courage to bin the army books and do a Ravening Hordes style listing again. I still wouldn't have liked the new core rules but I would at least have been able to grudgingly praise their resolve.



And I really don't understand the reasoning of the people who now suddenly pop up claiming 7th was the most popular incarnation of the game ever and the epitome of perfection.

Nor do I understand the reasoning of the people who suddenly pop up and denounce 7th as the worst edition ever and that it should 'burn', or is likened to 'cancer'!
I for one don't think 7th was perfect, but I also think a total rules rewrite such as 8th wasn't needed - and again, if they wanted to do it they should have had the courage to ditch everything and start again, not just the core rules (the aspect of 7th that needed changing the least).



Many of the people declaring Warhammer is "a game they no longer want to play" (I suppose the classic "GW better change everything for me or I'm leaving!" has become unfashionable) will probably still be here posting away.

It seems a little ironic that quite a few among the supporters of 8th say that they had quit before, or during, 7th edition and are 'excited to come back' thanks to the new rules. Would you consider them to be the same as us who are thinking of quitting the game now? Though I think anyone has the right to stop being involved in the game for a while if they don't like the rules, or the direction the game has taken, and shouldn't be ridiculed or talked down to if that is their choice. It doesn't neccesarily prevent them using Warseer - there are many subforums, after all.


Basically what you have is people who just buy a army to smash people with at Tournaments and those who buy models because they like them and enjoy having a beer, guess which ones are complaining about the changes ;)

Another generalisation. I can count the number of tournaments I have entered on one hand, and the number I have won without any hands at all. I bought/converted the models for each and every army I have because I liked them. And yet here I am complaining about the changes.



For those saying that the game was "too competitive" or whatever spin you'd like to give, and that it should be about pretty models and beer, I just want to say this;

In 7E, I could go around and play my tournaments with a solid tactical game, AND you could make relaxed lists, taking what you want, playing how you want and drink beer. Nothing stopped you in 7E from playing with scenarios and common goblins and such. If you think playing with 2 hydras makes you a dick, you had the power to stop it by not playing with or against that kind of list. In 7E, everyone could be happy.

In 8E, only the people who want a beer and pretzels game will be happy. The tactical, precise, inching game that yes, many of us really did like, is gone completely. The only thing that's left is the beer and pretzel game that WAS THERE ALREADY. All you had to do was make lists with beer and pretzel gaming in mind, just like tourney players makes lists with wining in mind.

In 7E, the game was what you made it. It could be different things to different people. In 8E, the game is a beer a pretzels and game, and if you don't like sodium, screw you.

That's my problem with 8E. GW is making the beer and pretzel gaming the default in 8E, like tactical playing was the default in 7E. The difference is that in 8E, tactical playing will be gone, and the ability of the player to make the game what they want, diminished.

I must agree wholeheartedly. Those who would damn 7th seem to forget that it wasn't compulsory to play the game the hyper-competitive way, with armies made up of only the most powerful/efficient stuff in the books. Scenarios have always been around (they were in the 6th ed rulebook, and still usable in 7th), and there was always the ability to house rule things if you wanted to.
Not every game you played had to be a tournament, not every list you wrote had to have the most power you could squeeze from the book, and not every major rule needed to be messed with for the new edition.

UberBeast
26-06-2010, 15:32
What was 'mangled' and 'opaque' about them? This is the constantly repeated mantra that I cannot understand at all. As far as I see it, the old *core* rules were fine - the army books were what started 7th's downfall, since power creep got out of control (and Matt Ward was allowed to write books). This sudden uproar of '7th's core rules were awful' has only been prevalent since 8th's rumours became solid, and I can't help but feel that those who like the changes are taking the opportunity to put down the old game at every opportunity, even in places it does not deserve it.

Very true. I think many people are happy with the 8th edition because they think it fixes the imbalances between the army books. Personally, I think the only thing it will do in that respect is change the imbalances.

Newer is better! Change is hope!

Gabacho Mk.II
26-06-2010, 15:41
I'm looking forward to less discussions and debates of "OMG THAT IS TOTALLY 1/8th OF AN INCH IN RANGE!" in terms of charges/shooting


This single point, especially for me and the GREAT majority of my gaming group, will be a welcome change.



I am soooooooooo looking forward to 8th ed. [while I still believe that the individual armybooks will eventually **** things up]

CrystalSphere
26-06-2010, 16:02
What i find sad is that as players we have to accept whatever GW choose to do with the rules, and in this change of edition it can be seen perfectly. I donīt like 8th edition in general, even if it has several changes that i do like, but in the end i would have to pretty much play 8th edition or not play at all, unless i am very lucky to convince people to use other ruleset or apply house rules.

I donīt think 8th edition has any spirit at all, it just added more dice rolls to the game and removed all the fun of making your own mistakes (iīve seen in 8th people measuring to avoid night goblin fanatics for example). In short i donīt like the direction the game seems to be going and i am losing a lot of the interest i had. I read some people say that they play for the background and they donīt care how the game is, well i donīt, i want good rules and a tactical game, where you have to think and your decision matters. I donīt want to rolls dices endlessly to see who wins the game.

I know this will never happen, but it seems like as long as GW is in charge they will just keep dumbing down the rules each edition (i suggest you read the 3rd edition rulebook to see what i am talking about) and making everything easier and more forgiving. Iīve seen this applied to in video games, as if now the general trend is to make everything incredibly simple and straigthforward, with no challenge or complex situation. I feel fantasy is going the same route, and more and more of the game is now being controled by the dice rolls, until it wonīt matter what you do with your units as long as you get good rolls and win the game.

UberBeast
26-06-2010, 16:11
What i find sad is that as players we have to accept whatever GW choose to do with the rules, and in this change of edition it can be seen perfectly. I donīt like 8th edition in general, even if it has several changes that i do like, but in the end i would have to pretty much play 8th edition or not play at all, unless i am very lucky to convince people to use other ruleset or apply house rules.

I donīt think 8th edition has any spirit at all, it just added more dice rolls to the game and removed all the fun of making your own mistakes (iīve seen in 8th people measuring to avoid night goblin fanatics for example). In short i donīt like the direction the game seems to be going and i am losing a lot of the interest i had. I read some people say that they play for the background and they donīt care how the game is, well i donīt, i want good rules and a tactical game, where you have to think and your decision matters. I donīt want to rolls dices endlessly to see who wins the game.

I know this will never happen, but it seems like as long as GW is in charge they will just keep dumbing down the rules each edition (i suggest you read the 3rd edition rulebook to see what i am talking about) and making everything easier and more forgiving. Iīve seen this applied to in video games, as if now the general trend is to make everything incredibly simple and straigthforward, with no challenge or complex situation. I feel fantasy is going the same route, and more and more of the game is now being controled by the dice rolls, until it wonīt matter what you do with your units as long as you get good rolls and win the game.

You're not alone in this. Many people agree with you.

Archangelion
26-06-2010, 16:21
I don't mind streem lineing the rules, but there is a point where it stops being the game.

Jind_Singh
26-06-2010, 17:11
Wow, what a thread! Both sides of the fence are displayed in force! My background:

AVID Warhammer fan who played 2nd, 3rd, started 4th but left the hobby for close to a decade and came back 1.5 years ago for 7th.

LOVE Warhammer! Huge DoC & O & G army, sizable OK & Empire, starting out Skaven & Beastmen

My 7th ed views - it was bliss - so tactical, allowed me to go all out dirty (DoC) but my army of choice (and actually been almost exclusivly playing them) were Goblin hordes and did really well with them (See my thread, Dreams of Greatness, A Greenskins rise to Glory), and was worried about the new changes coming in 8th...BIG TIME!
BUT something that always frustrated me with 7th was we have a bunch of experienced players and we'd play quite a few games each week, however it was silly how after so much gaming in nearly 2 years we'd still come across, routinely, situations that left us boggled in the game! There was room for abuse here and there, and some of the mechanics were not decent at all. However, overall it was a good thinking mans game!

8th Ed

When I 1st read about the core changes in 8th I thought....uh oh, here comes another 40k saga were we have slick rules, great models, but no thought req'd (well, that's harsh as actually there is a lot of thought req'd but it's like comparing someone going for a jog v's someone who is sprinting up hill, both require stamina but one has way more!). I then started playing, had about 4 games in 8th, and it's actually not that bad!

Why?

All the reasons I thought 8th had it overblown were:

Magic
While I absolutely love the PD generation model, the miscasts, etc, I thought the spells were too over board. Now after 4 games I can confirm that the spells are indeed too strong! Purple sun of xerus landed on my unit of 40 Goblins and killed 26 in one shot! Last game the pit of shades did a similar number to the same unit! The spells are nasty but it's fine as to be honest you only really get one or two chances per game to pull them off - so they should be tough spells! In 7th the magic phase was too predictable, you knew just how many dice everyone brought to the phase and could plan out en-mass destruction of the enemy. Now it's no where near that bad, who cares about WoC gateway when you have your own doom spells!
Plus I like how I don't have to bring scroll caddies or multiple casters to my army list - heck I could even bring NO casters as I'll still get the same number of dispel die!

Movement
My biggest fears were in this phase but thankfully it's alive and kicking! I do feel that that units shouldn't be able to march through terrain pieces and move just normal speed (so 4" for infantry) but overall the movement has streamlined up big time! To counter the faster pace they have introduced more dangers of moving through such terrain - which is kind of neat as in reality commanders who pushed their troops too hard on the march suffered loses - and this kind of echos in the new DT tests, etc, that 8th has.
Charging is actually better now - before we'd have to kind of eyeball the charge to see if we're in, now we just pre-measure and then do some statistics to see if we can make it in. But at the same time what I really enjoy about the random charge is the feeling of desperate heroics! In 7th we're stuck with the law of physics - an 8" charge is an 8" charge no matter what! You really want a unit to move up to help out one of their friendly units thats going to get stomped by the enemy but you cant! Now there is a chance that you roll high enough to get the boys in to make a last minute save! At the same time it's good not being able to depend on a charge working as boy do you have to think fast on your feet!
And the way reforms work is much better - no more adding to your frontage, etc, make the reform and off you go (providing the ld test is passed) - this also makes it easier to have fast moving battle lines that SHOULD be able to respond to our, the generals, commands!
And there is still tactics needed people in movement, perhaps more than ever now. Only hold reaction to overrun is huge - if you can engineer the breakthrough you can devastate enemy lines, just ask the 10 Inner circle Knights who rampaged through my battle line yesterday!
And I was always annoyed that if a unit of archers deployed say 8 by 2, for e.g. were flanked I never did get why the other archers just chilled if the unit didn't break in the combat. Like were the 2 archers on the flank unable to tell their boys they were under attack? Now they can reform, that's good!

On combat
I have yet to fully understand and appreciate the overall dynamics of this phase but I think it's tough! Ever tried breaking through a unit of 70 Halberdiers with a warrior priest? I did and I won't try that again! I sent in 2 chariots and 15 gobbos - and got crushed! In 7th ed that was my win there as with 2D6 + 2 impact hits, 6 spear hits from gobbos, and then 4 wolves and 7 infantary attacks the empire unit was in deep do-do! But why? Why should all the other dudes even care they lost 8 men? Out of 70? Surely panic would not set in so easily? That's why I love this stubborn rule, it is great! Perhaps my only fear, for now, is that it should be stubborn on the highest leadership in the unit, not the generals, as otherwise we're seeing stubborn ld 10 for Dwarves and Elves - but that also works out as they are elite armies and don't really have the numbers to fold too easy, but we'll see how it works out in about 2 months of more playing!

So all in all the OP has got it pretty much spot on - 8th is here, it's here to stay, and it WILL take us out of our comfort zone - big time! And at 1st the changes we see seem strange, unplayable, and made me purchase an Eldar Guardian army last week! And I did think that 8th had ended my passion for my favorite game since 1994! But once you play a few games the shock wears off and you realize it's the same old game played in a whole new way, and I'm looking forward to the learning curve! And even better our playing crowd has already gotten bigger which is only a good thing as I'll get to socialize with new people and make new friends.

So long live the spirit of 8th! 7th, for all I loved it, was flawed and was in dire need of an overhaul. Is 8th the answer? I think it's a strong step in the right direction but the edition I'm really excited about is 9th! That will be a tweak of 8th, just as 7th was an improvement on 6th (So I been told by my mates), and I think that once the book is in my hands I'll be able to figure out how to make my Goblins as fearsome in 8th as they were in 7th!

Nicha11
26-06-2010, 17:20
I'm quite suprised how many people are flipping 7th edition the bird, kicking him in the face and walking out the door to 8th.

Personally I liked the core rules of 7th edition, they were not perfect but they were damn good.
The army books broke the game, not the basic rules.
Now that 8th is out people seem to think that the core rules will make up for the army books.
We'll see.

"The Edition is dead, long live the Edition!"

GodlessM
26-06-2010, 17:48
Great post Jind.

Jind_Singh
26-06-2010, 18:01
Thanks GodlessM!

And as for Nichal1 - it's true that the switch is being embraced MUCH faster than I thought it would - but then at our LGS a lot of die hards were becoming disenchanted with 7th.

Can't wait to see what we're all saying, say around, in August/September

GodlessM
26-06-2010, 18:04
The reason it is being embraced so fast is because of the power surge in the last 2yrs unbalancing 7th edition and because people have remembered it is a game and should be fun.

Bac5665
26-06-2010, 18:32
How was 7E not fun? Have people been playing a game they hate? Sure it wasn't fun for everyone when DoC won by default. That's why we have gaming groups and Tournaments where people are expected to bring lists that ARE fun. in 7E, the army books have allowed for abuse. The players have the responsibility to make sure the game is fun, whatever it is that they think fun is.

In 8E, there is only 1 vision of fun, and that is apparently that craps without the betting is more fun than chess. That's madness to me. And there will still be abusive powerbuilds that sap the fun from the game, don't you worry. So all 8E does is force a singular view of fun on players where before we had freedom to pick what was fun for us.

GodlessM
26-06-2010, 18:35
Bac you appear to have a horrible habit of either putting words in people's mouths or misunderstanding simple sentences. Tell me, where did my post say 7th edition wasn't fun? If you for some reason misunderstood my post, let me clarify, "people remembered it is a game and thus about fun, so having fun with whatever the main rules are is more important than any need to constantly win with an army they copied from an internet forum and took over and over because they thought they'd get glory from winning a few games of toy soldiers." I never said 7th edition wasn't fun.

Bac5665
26-06-2010, 18:39
When you say that a game "should be fun" as a reason 8E will be better than 7E, you imply that 7E wasn't fun. At least you do to me. Apparently that's not what you meant, and I apologize for that. But many people here have said that.

That said, do you agree or disagree that 8E will allow for fewer styles of play than 7E?

SeaSwift
26-06-2010, 18:54
do you agree or disagree that 8E will allow for fewer styles of play than 7E?

Disagree. Strongly.

REALITY: The styles of play allowed will stay exactly the same, because you are allowed to field whatever you want.

RULEBOOK STRINGENT: The styles of play differ slightly, requiring more points spent in Core, but what types of units these can be is up to you. Allowed exactly the same styles of play.

PLAYING TO WIN: Probably less WAAC builds, basically everything has a shot at winning, unlike 7th in which certain armies were autowin against certain other armies, so more builds previously not viable. Play now favours balanced armies, and I will explain that if I must.

EDIT: Bac, he didn't say that 8th would be better because it was fun (and therefore 7th wasn't), he said PEOPLE remember it is a game and supposed to be fun.

Secondly, if there are still powerbuilds (as we are constantly assured) why don't you find them then? Give us examples of why it is so bad, please.

Duke Georgal
26-06-2010, 19:00
How was 7E not fun? Have people been playing a game they hate?

No, I stopped playing a game that I used to enjoy.

GodlessM
26-06-2010, 19:01
8th is no more restrictive than 7th in playing styles. Besides, in both editions playstyle is only restricted by how much a player cares about winning.

VoodooJanus
26-06-2010, 19:18
See, I feel like Warhammer has changed gamestyles as well, but not necessarily in a bad way (although I still feel slightly huffy over skirmishers if we're being perfectly honest...)

Where some compare the edition change being from chess to checkers, I look at it more as a change from checkers (because, let's face it, Warhammer is nowhere near as tactical as chess) to poker.

The 'tactical' changes I see lie largely in the random charges.

7th: guessing distances is supreme, movement is fixed, thusly area of control exerted by any given unit is similarly fixed. M value is extremely important. This allows for units to have a solid 'worth', and thus allows many kinds of strategy.

8th: Random distances lead to random (although statistically predictable, just not to 100%) areas of control. Gambling on charges will be now the rule, but still can be similarly predicted to a reasonable margin of error. While this seems like a downgrade, IMHO, it isn't. If your battleplan hinged on a successful charge, all you need is more redundancy, thus more points invested in your plan. It forces generals to commit to plans more than they had to now, which is less allowing of a 'reactive' style of play. Not that reactive playstyle is without merits, but planning ahead is decisively more difficult than reacting to the moves made the previous turn.

I feel like 8th edition strategy will emerge in the months following the game's release, and that said strategy will hinge largely upon the deployment phase (and also, as with ANY general's plan, a generous pinch of luck.) It will be about properly utilizing the cards dealt, rather than customizing the hand, if you follow me.

Also, to respond to BAC: I don't think it allows for fewer playstyles necessarily. I think it changes which playstyles are favored, as each edition change does, but it doesn't change the amount of playstyles allowed.

Hordes, which were previously lacking, gained considerable ground.

Elite Infantry armies also tended to struggle, but have gained ground as well (although not to the extent at which hordes have)

Monstrous Infantry gained ground as well, although they still aren't the most competitive choices.

Cavalry, despite what people have thought, have remained pretty much the same. However, infantry of all brands have increased in power due to their relatively low points cost, so any heavy cav that was dependent upon striking first, will have issues. Charging an infantry block with chaos knights however, will still be as awesome as it always was. You might lose one or two where you wouldn't before, but they're still REALLY good.

Monsters have pretty much remained at the same level as well, although, like cavalry, they're likely to lose a wound or two in sustained infantry combat.

Combat characters have lost veritable ground though. They needed to. But considering the new playstyle changes, this doesn't really invalidate any more armies than 8th edition validates on its own.

Magic characters on the other hand, have become simultaneously more powerful, and less required. This broadens the 'playstyle' spectrum considerably. I can take a single level 2 wizard, and still compete in the magic phase, while a person with a level 4 can still do considerably better. I could also decide to take no magic at all, and not get totally leveled by magic. It removes the previously obligatory scroll caddy, and opens up options in the hero/lord department. This is doubly true of the new %ages system, because the option is open to take many many heroes, or a few lords, or even something in between.

So I disagree with the statement that 8E allows for lesser styles of play, personally, although I can see exactly where you're coming from (I play Wood Elves, and I'm a bit annoyed to say the least!). I think it takes the focus off of character-dependent armies and ridiculously tiny armies, or armies that play the avoidance game and places the focus more on armies that look like armies. Mind you, this is just the focus, those other armies still hold a place in many cases.

I'm certainly excited, and I hope you don't leave the hobby based on these misgivings, as I believe wholeheartedly that the hobby is going to absolutely bloom this edition.

Bac5665
26-06-2010, 19:25
No, I'm not going to leave the hobby. I still think 8E will even be fun, at least some of the time. But I don't see how it could possibly be better than 7E. 7E has the best core rules of any game I've ever played. It was the DE, DoC and WoC books that really ruined 7E, IMHO. And all three of those armies will be just as much a problem in 8E from what I can tell.

I guess I don't believe that 8E will have much impact on the tiers of play, since almost everyone is getting effected in the same general ways. A couple of armies are becoming almost unplayable in 8E, which is not a good thing. And then there's the premeasuring + random charges, which removes a good deal of skill from the game.

So the problem of 7E (terrible balance) is staying about the same or getting worse by making a few books unplayable. Meanwhile, the game is getting easier. I strongly dislike both those things. If those predictions are wrong, then 8E will be great for me. But I don't see how the game isn't at least becoming easier, which is the big problem to me.

Anyway, I'll still play, at it will probably even be fun. But it will less fun proportionally based on the reasons I've explained.

Orangecoke
26-06-2010, 19:59
Awesome post back there, Jind!

To me, 8th does sound more fun on paper. Hopefully that will prove to be the case.

Jind you mentioned random charges can lead to heroics. I definitely agree, and feel it will add a lot of uncertainty and excitement to battles. It will be a rush when troops charge farther than expected to hit the enemy line, and it will be a sinking feeling when they fail to make what looks to be an easy charge then the fun of trying to recover from it (challenging). Charging becomes a case of balancing risk and reward.

logan054
26-06-2010, 20:48
Another generalisation. I can count the number of tournaments I have entered on one hand, and the number I have won without any hands at all. I bought/converted the models for each and every army I have because I liked them. And yet here I am complaining about the changes.

It was intended as such, if it makes you feel better just replace tournaments with competitive play

SeaSwift
26-06-2010, 21:07
So the problem of 7E (terrible balance) is staying about the same or getting worse by making a few books unplayable.

Ha! 8th is making the 7th tier system useless, and not just by changing the armies around. The tiers are getting far closer in power level, and the only book (singular, Bac) that is as unplayable as, say, Ogre Kingdoms in 7th is Tomb Kings. And they are getting the first new Army Book after 8th is out (assuming rumours are correct, which they mostly were for 8th).

The most overpowered armies have been reined in, the weakest have been hoisted up.

MalusCalibur
26-06-2010, 21:20
The most overpowered armies have been reined in, the weakest have been hoisted up.

No, I don't think they have.

Daemons: Can take even more Flesh Hounds and Flamers. Greater Daemons can still appear in 'standard' games (not that I object to that), and the Obsidian Armour Bloodthirster can still be taken. Bloodletters can get an obscene M+3D6 charge. Strike in I order helps them a LOT.

Dark Elves: Can take more Hydras. Most-complained-about magic items are unchanged.

Ogres: No point playing them until they get a new book. Between Steadfast, needing ranks to break ranks, inreased shooting against them, and strike in I order, they got even WORSE under 8th.

GodlessM
26-06-2010, 21:26
Boo hoo, they can take more Flesh Hounds etc. In case you didn't notice, said Flesh Hounds don't have even half the power they had last edition so I welcome more Flesh Hounds and less Bloodletters. And the BT charges M+3D6 choosing the highest, unless I've missed a special rule for him.

SeaSwift
26-06-2010, 21:28
Daemons: Off the scale for the most part, but with Magic being reined in, the most common power build (Horror spam) is no longer effective. Fear/autobreak is no longer as good/exists. Don't have much shooting so the TLoS rules mean they can be obliterated by shooting and have no retaliation. Won't benefit from Steadfast rules, really. Plague things have to choose between Ward and Regen. Lore of Light will utterly obliterate them. Still brutal, admittedly, though.

Dark Elves: Hydras are no longer as good, with only 1 Breath Weapon per game and one flaming attack getting rid of Regen for good. Will also frequently face steadfast units, and can get picked out through TLoS easily. Black Guard Deathstar now not nearly as good, same with Shadespam.

Ogres: Get fighting in two ranks, Stomp attacks, Gnoblars can get Steadfast and can block TLoS. Impact hits ignore normal striking order. Besides, you won't have to wait long for the new book, they're right after TK.

Darktan
26-06-2010, 21:31
pretty sure you can get double hydra in 2k points and isn't regen only removed for a phase?

TheMav80
26-06-2010, 21:55
I didn't think you could double up on rares at 2K.

MalusCalibur
26-06-2010, 22:20
And the BT charges M+3D6 choosing the highest, unless I've missed a special rule for him.

Bloodletters, not the Bloodthirster. Give them the Icon of Endless War, and they can charge M+3D6 the first time. And every unit can have it. If I wasn't already sworn off 8th edition, I'd be rubbing my hands in glee at the wrath my mono-Khorne Daemons could unleash.

Drasanil
26-06-2010, 22:46
Bloodletters, not the Bloodthirster. Give them the Icon of Endless War, and they can charge M+3D6 the first time. And every unit can have it. If I wasn't already sworn off 8th edition, I'd be rubbing my hands in glee at the wrath my mono-Khorne Daemons could unleash.

Bloodletters are fairly expensive-squishy single attack models and will be facing loads of attacks back, they're not getting everything their way.

I'd be more concerned about Deamonettes and Swallowing Keepers.

Aluinn
27-06-2010, 01:04
I just wanted to add to all this that in my time playing GW games I've seen Fantasy go from 5th to, now, 8th Ed. and 40K from 3rd to 5th, and every dang time a new edition has been released for either I've heard complaints that the games are being "dumbed down" or "made easier for the kiddies", that they are now ruined and will face some mass exodus of the "hardcore" gamers. I'm sure someone will make the argument that GW have actually been dumbing down both game systems at a steady pace for better than a decade, but it doesn't really hold in that case that a gamer focused on tactics should find 7th Edition even remotely appealing. Yet, here we have, in this very thread, many such gamers who loved 7th.

The obvious conclusion is that people tend to focus too much on what no longer will work rather than what will work that would not have worked before, and that even those who are strongly resistant to rules changes tend to adapt to them eventually and find them tactical enough, given time.

I know I haven't addressed anyone's specific complaints, and you can still claim that it is different *this time*, but if you're worried about 8th please consider that many people were just as worried about 7th (and that a lot of those who weren't complained that it wasn't different *enough*), and 6th, and so on, and that now it is apparently regarded by many as some ideal version of Warhammer.

IMO 8th will not be half so different as most players, even the ones that like it, are making out. I think horde armies will be the only ones fielding the massive blocks of infantry that are predicted to become so common. I think heavy cavalry will still be good for flanking, even if they don't have ranks (and speaking of that, I think flanking will still be highly desirable). I think the movement phase will remain highly crucial to the outcome of games. Most of the fundamentals will not change.

Now if the very essence of Warhammer was turning that one model in a skirmishing unit to a different angle so that your opponent would be forced to charge off in a different direction, or maybe shuffling around an inch forward or an inch back to try to come out ahead in a Mexican charge-range standoff, then yeah, Warhammer is ruined. I frankly think those are ridiculous things to claim, though.

boreas
27-06-2010, 01:41
I started wrgaming with WFB 6th ed. With 7th ed, it just became too static for my group's taste, so we moved to 40k. But now that 40k is a mess, I looking to restart WFB! This vibe has made me very optimistic!

Phil

Ultimate Life Form
27-06-2010, 04:05
With 7th ed, it just became too static for my group's taste, so we moved to 40k. But now that 40k is a mess, I looking to restart WFB!

Guys, we're all ignorant pawns in GW's masterplan of mini selling. :shifty:

I can see them laughing while we rip each other's head off here.

Llew
27-06-2010, 04:20
While I don't disagree that there will be some like that, to write off the majority of non-supporters as such is a dreadful sweeping statement, and is exactly the kind of elitism that is putting me further off 8th...

I'm writing off the majority of Anti-8's (or more accurately, the majority of Anti-8's on Warseer) because the whines are consistently about how wierd little things they so loved about 7th are the only really tactically complex game, and anything in the new edition must be inferior. I have not yet seen them support their position as anything *other* than just bias against the new. I have seen at least one who admitted that he enjoys the part of the game that is about knowing arcane rules and I can accept that as a basis for his position.

I'm still unsure at how saying that a simpler game could be every bit as tactically complex as a complex game is "elitist". That baffles me a bit.


...As it happens, I'm not that great at judging distances, but I prefer it as a game mechanic because if I'm wrong, the fault is entirely my own - one of the few parts of the game that can never be the dice's fault.

I'm great at judging distances and feel that it's one of the stupidest parts of the game. There is nothing worse than trying to teach a new player the game and soundly thrashing him because he just can't calibrate his range guesses. You either have to say, "Well...that was really a bad guess, so I'm going to compensate by just moving my unit forward so you can charge next time," or you thrash them for it. It's completely unsatisfying either way for both parties. (Or, for God's sake, I should hope it is.)

Range guessing appears to have been GW's attempt to make up for the fact that they really didn't have a command and control mechanic that kept you from doing precisely what you wanted when you wanted. It was a clunky way to do it, and it's a reasonable solution when you have two players who are equally skilled at it playing head to head. It is an amazing force multiplier when there is a disparity in the players to the point that the game is remarkably less challenging to the good guesser and nearly insurmountable to the bad guesser.

I am not sorry to see range guessing go.



Perhaps you could give an example of this 'non-intuitive minutiae'? As I cannot think of any part of the rules that didn't become intuitive very fast. I can't help but feel this paragraph is saying 'To play 7th you needed to know the rules'. Well, yes, one might expect that.

Here's an example of general non-intuitive play. In combat, whoever strikes first removes casualties and those casualties reduce the amount of return strikes. The combat is clearly *not* meant to represent a mere instant of attack, yet for some reason trained warrior stepping into the ranks can only serve as targets to be butchered if the attacker has enough attacks, but they cannot strike back.

March blocking. It's a useful tactic, but really, it would be better represented by a Ld check, not just a case where a foe within range (which you have to pre-measure...but pre-measuring is bad...isn't it?) automatically stops you from marching. If you're really worried about a foe being close, then either they would pin you (if you're really worried) or you would work as hard as possible to get far from them as quickly as you could. But just advancing cautiously is silly. It is especially silly when there is no game benefit to advancing cautiously. You're so worried that you can't focus enough to march fast for paying attention to them, yet they can charge you in the flank or rear just as easily as if you were unaware of them.

Those are not the worst, and far from the only. They're just two I can think of as it nears midnight and I type with my washer and dryer running in the background.



There's also another, non-game (or even player) related benefit that I strongly suspect was the main reason for that encouragement. But I digress.

I don't suspect it, I wholeheartedly believe it was a huge driving factor. However, that doesn't mean it won't make an interesting game by default. But when you have a game where most of those beautiful miniatures are little more than wound markers, you have to find a way to add value to them. And one way to add value is giving special benefits to whoever piles up the most of those pretty little wound markers.

Don't for a moment believe that I think GW's focus on infantry is altruistic. It's an attempt to get the game to look the way they have always hoped it would. They had rules before that didn't encourage people to fight the way the fluff armies did. They want the fluff-ized armies for more sales. Luckily there are some great miniature companies giving you the chance to play the way GW wants you to, but not at the price GW wants to extract.


And yet allowing measuring of any distance at any time models an unrealistic, godlike knowledge of the battlefield. If you're going to praise random charges as more realistic, you can't then conveniently ignore the complete lack of realism in the game as a whole.

Pre-measuring is not a "realistic" feature, any more than range-guessing was. Pre-measuring is a nod to the idea that one small skill has an overwhelming influence on the game as it plays, and it is one more barrier to encouraging new people to play.

What I mean by "modelling uncertainty" better is that it reflects a command-and-control issue a bit better on three levels. First is just the overall explanation of why your guys don't charge. Roll snake eyes? The guys just don't buy what the commander is selling. Boxcars? Impassioned speech and command to charge. I'll have to see how the new rules handle a blown roll to comment in more detail, but at the worst, it's no sillier than the current version and could be a good deal better. (I can already think how I'd handle it, so I have house rules ready just in case.)

Second, is the actual game function that prevents even a great tactical movement from not working out as planned. History is littered with guys having their troops in position, but them not moving when needed.

Third, in 7th Ed., a bad range guess on a charge only meant that you were certain to be countercharged. In 8th, you'll just be *likely* to be countercharged. So even if you screw up, there's always a chance your gambit won't completely fail. You get to cuss your dice, then you are really engaged when your opponent rolls his charge, as you hope he gets to cuss his dice next! (Incidentally, being engaged in your opponent's dice rolls is a really good thing, especially if you're going to have long periods of just standing there while he moves. It makes it feel like you're still playing. That's a good game-design element.)


In the same vein that I have not heard a single credible explanation as to how knowing probabilities and rolling dice is any more of a skill than estimating a distance - but again, at least the latter is entirely down to the ability of the player.

Knowing probabilities is a skill, and some guys will memorize the charts and know that, at just over 15" away, there's only about a 3% chance that his infantry unit will get to him. It's also a skill that can easily be handled by a chart on paper, so it really doesn't require a given skill. They have charts that help with range guessing...they're called rulers, but those are illegal in
when used in that way in 7th Ed. ;) Some people are good at range guessing and some just aren't and won't be. But everyone who plays wargames can read a chart.

The tactical skill comes down to figuring out what gambles to take and when. The fun part of this is that because of the probabilities of dice, almost every turn you will have *some* tactical decision you made come back to bite you in the tuchas. The part where actual tactics will be needed is figuring out how you recover from that screw up, and how you exploit your opponent's failed gambits.

(NOTE: Bear in mind this next paragraph doesn't talk about just blown LD rolls or the like. I still don't think that sort of thing is much different, but I haven't researched it yet.) In 7th, outside of a bad range guess or just horrible combat rolls, things just worked like you expected and you played through it. Usually if a foe really surprised you it's because you either didn't know how his army worked, or you had a brain fart. In 8th edition tactical decisions, unlikely things will happen and near-certainties will fail on a more regular basis than before.

The skill will lie in the adaptation, not in the rolling or knowing probabilities. This is a far better test of tactical ability than just knowing how to guess a distance using a skill that, outside the tabletop, is probably only useful to trim carpenters.


If they had kept the core of the rules the same and made the neccesary changes without the needless ones, there wouldn't be any complaints from me. For example, stepping up, fighting in I order, new basic magic rules and shooting in two ranks, are good changes. Random charges, vastly reduced charging significance (to the point of almost irrelevance), mangled skirmishers, 'every-lore-gets-an-uber-spell', premeasuring, random terrain effects, and Steadfast (and I'm sure there are more I can't think of offhand), are bad changes, or badly executed at the least. Each new edition is supposed to improve on the previous one, and you don't always need a drastic rewrite to do that - look at the last three editions of 40K, for example.

I'm not guaranteeing a perfect game. Definitely not. My gut instinct is that it will be a good game, probably a bit better than previous editions, but whether it will stand up will depend on how the guys doing the Army Books decide to screw things up. The new rules allow for lots of new special abilities, and I have faith that GW can screw up some special abilities in ways never intended.


If they wanted to 'start afresh' and rewrite everything from scratch, they should have had the courage to bin the army books and do a Ravening Hordes style listing again. I still wouldn't have liked the new core rules but I would at least have been able to grudgingly praise their resolve.

I agree on a Ravening Hordes, but GW is dead-set against that apparently. Of course, I'd rather see them release a core army for everyone at once and introduce expansions over time as they have a chance to test them. There are some companies that do that, but GW doesn't seem to think it's feasible.

kardar233
27-06-2010, 05:23
Here's an example of general non-intuitive play. In combat, whoever strikes first removes casualties and those casualties reduce the amount of return strikes. The combat is clearly *not* meant to represent a mere instant of attack, yet for some reason trained warrior stepping into the ranks can only serve as targets to be butchered if the attacker has enough attacks, but they cannot strike back.

Ahh, this is where real life experience comes into play. Being a swordsman-in-training, I can say that the person who moves into range first is at a serious disadvantage. In rapier combat, the prima tempo of a person stepping into misura larga (the opponent's full range) is, unless noticeably more skilled than their opponent and having time to prepare, in a very bad spot. Similarly, in longsword, the person who moves into range gives his opponent a moment to strike which can often be lethal.

Aluinn
27-06-2010, 07:13
Ahh, this is where real life experience comes into play. Being a swordsman-in-training, I can say that the person who moves into range first is at a serious disadvantage. In rapier combat, the prima tempo of a person stepping into misura larga (the opponent's full range) is, unless noticeably more skilled than their opponent and having time to prepare, in a very bad spot. Similarly, in longsword, the person who moves into range gives his opponent a moment to strike which can often be lethal.

Well I've avoided making posts about realism but since it keeps coming up in the threads I'm reading about 8th, I guess I'll give my two cents.

On the striking first thing, I'm a fencer too and, yes, lunging is risky if your opponent is fast, as it leaves you pretty exposed when it fails, so I guess I agree (although, on the other hand, you only do it when you expect it will allow you to poke someone :)). If this is the case, then the realistic way to model charging would be to actually allow the charged unit to strike first, but this has never been done in any edition of Warhammer that I'm familiar with. It would be a bad game mechanic because disincentivizing charges would just mean that no one will ever be willing to take the plunge.

Why did charges happen in real life, then? Well they usually did not involve infantry with swords charging infantry with swords, certainly. At least in the Middle Ages, it was almost always cavalry with lances or (later and into the Renaissance) infantry with pikes doing the charging, which worked around that problem by, well, using long weapons. You could say that the super-long sarissa (almost a sapling, really) is probably one reason (aside from good generalship) that Alexander was able to win so many victories: His troops had the longest sticks of anyone, no pun intended. The Romans often let their enemies do the charging and either way had short spears to throw that sort of served some of the function of a pike. The problem here is that in Warhammer you have whole armies without any access to pikes (I guess that would be all, in fact, except DoW), lances, or javelins. Poor ol' Ogres and WoC don't even have spears. (Well, Ogre clubs would have long reach, but they'd still just impale themselves charging a wall of pikes.)

But anyway combats in Warhammer aren't, as Llew said, meant to represent just one moment of fighting, one swing by one side and one swing back. They represent a longer period of time where there can be quite a bit of back-and-forth, and allow for individuals in a second rank to take the place of a fallen fighter in the front and still do some fighting of their own (but not too much, which is, I suppose, where limiting supportive attacks to 1 per model comes in). So, there is some justification for stepping up.

In the end, though, "realism" (quotes because it's a game with wizards and dragons :)) is a secondary concern. I think players need to have the ability to suspend disbelief, so rules that seem to have absolutely no fluff explanation are bad, but if you can choose from a set of alternatives that all have a potential explanation (and that is usually the case), then you pick the one that is best for gameplay, as a designer, rather than the one that seems most realistic.

In a fantasy game what you're going for is more like "cinematic realism" anyway. You pretty much just want the game to not be too gameist and the rules to not seem arbitrary, but you don't really care about accurately modelling the effects of weapons. All your rules need to do is be kind of intuitive, and I think Warhammer's are: Big things hit harder, spears have a sort of reach, cavalry are fast, etc. Beyond that, cinematic realism is enhanced by making combats seem deadlier and more epic, and also more of a back-and-forth struggle, and the 8th Ed. changes would seem to accomplish that. Some other changes like magic being very risky but very powerful also serve this aim, even if there's no such thing as realism when it comes to that subject :).

On a final note, something that might occur to a lot of people is the question of infantry with bayonettes charging other infantry with bayonettes, and who might have "struck first" in that case, since it is one where neither side had a significant advantage in reach. From what I have read it was a bit of a gamble on psychology; the charging infantry hoped that the infantry being charged would run away, and that is why they usually made a charge. Where a clash actually occurred it seems to have tended to be bloody and decided by either numbers or yet more psychology, or a combination in the sense of the impact of numerical advantage on psychology. I don't think one side really struck first at all; some infantrymen on each side would manage to parry a thrust and some would fail and get stabbed.

Late
27-06-2010, 08:25
Hm. The spirit of Warhammer 8e seems to be "7e was too hard for young and casual players to grasp, let's remove all pretense of subtlety and strategy from the game."

To their credit, they've done a bang-up job of that. Warhammer 8e will be a better beer and pretzels game, but as a strategy game? It will be looking up a Candyland from here on out.

Exactly.

They are doing the same thing that they did with 40,000. They are trying to market their games to an ever-younger audience by simplifying them and making tem more "fun". Also, the "focus on the hobby aspect" means "more stuff to sell"

meh.

yabbadabba
27-06-2010, 08:40
They are doing the same thing that they did with 40,000. They are trying to market their games to an ever-younger audience by simplifying them and making tem more "fun". And why not? Its a market with a lot of money in it, and far far less whinging, whining and competition than the Vets market. WFB has been losing out on 40K since year dot; surely by increasing the opportunity for more younger recruits, with the possibility of more challenging expansions for mature gamers is a good thing?

Oh and as an aside, wouldn't you expect veteran gamers to be more capable of dealing with the Fog of War (like random movement) than younger, less experienced gamers?


Also, the "focus on the hobby aspect" means "more stuff to sell" Well, they are a public owned business. Are you proposing that GW produce something that does not promote sales?

Chiron
27-06-2010, 10:06
Well, they are a public owned business. Are you proposing that GW produce something that does not promote sales?

WARHAMMMER 8th: "Its a bit **** really" - Jervis Johnson "So bad that it made my novels look well written" - Gav Thorpe

Best. Marketing. Ever.

yabbadabba
27-06-2010, 10:17
WARHAMMMER 8th: "Its a bit **** really" - Jervis Johnson "So bad that it made my novels look well written" - Gav Thorpe

Best. Marketing. Ever. You have got me confused there mate. What do you mean?

rtunian
27-06-2010, 12:44
snip.

a great rejoinder, +1

Toshiro
27-06-2010, 12:52
one thing I find very strange when reading this thread is how the competitive player says that 8th ed limits things to just pretzel and beer game.

You can still take 2 hydras or 2 HPAs at 2k points plus nice goodies in the specials, how does that limit you from building that kind of army still if you want to? only difference is that now it won't chew through infantry as easily as it used to. This doesn't limit you from using them, it only enables the people that like core infantry to actually use it without the frustration of seeing it terror'd or panicked away before they even got to fight with anything.

Llew
27-06-2010, 13:24
Ahh, this is where real life experience comes into play. Being a swordsman-in-training, I can say that the person who moves into range first is at a serious disadvantage. In rapier combat, the prima tempo of a person stepping into misura larga (the opponent's full range) is, unless noticeably more skilled than their opponent and having time to prepare, in a very bad spot. Similarly, in longsword, the person who moves into range gives his opponent a moment to strike which can often be lethal.

And here's where getting in the muck of a mass SCA melee comes into play. I've only done it on a small scale as preparation, but I've seen large fights and my observation has been borne out.

First, in a mass melee, it really makes absolutely no difference which side charges. It's down to the timing and ability of individual guys in the line, as well as their weapon reach and the size of their shield.

Second, when you are in a pile of guys, with guys on either side of you and one of them is removed as a casualty, the guy stepping into the hole often can land a strong shot as he steps up because the foe still has to pay attention to the guys on either side of the casualty. Plus, he probably won't strike the foe right in front of him...he'll strike the guy next to him who misses the new guy stepping up into the line. I've seen guys with wonderful one-on-one skills in SCA (whether through Kendo training or whatnot) who are attrocious in melee because the skill sets just don't match up.

The other point that you're missing is that the melee is *not* a representation of an instant of combat. (I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere before.) Given that 6 turns, and hence about 12 rounds of combat, are meant to represent an entire battle, each round of combat is probably meant to represent at least 5 minutes of actual battle and could be much, much more. With that being the case, even if you try to factor the momentary disadvantage of stepping up (which may be there in one-on-one combat, but really isn't in melee) is meaningless.

BigBossOgryn
27-06-2010, 13:36
I don't like all this talk that 40K 'got stupid' as the editions went on. All I remember of 40K 2nd Ed was a bunch of stuck-in-their-ways 'cool guys' that ruined their opponents with cyclone missile launcher wielding Wolf Guard and similar such. Then third edition came out and they threw their toys out of the pram, made a bunch of ****-poor excuses about the game becoming crap so not to look like the whining elitists they were and went away into dark corners to play their precious 2nd Edition. What makes me laugh is they still periodically crawl out, one or two at a time and get back into the hobby.

These 8th > 7th / 7th > 8th threads are riddled with people that are pretty much those '2nd Ed 40K guys' in my eyes and I'm just glad I'm not one of these people that is so jaded I can't accept change for the better when I see it. Yeah, we can all sit here and say that GW are evil and want all our monies and souls but even they must have smelt the rot that was emanating from 7th and decided a dramatic change was needed. They don't want to be pushing a **** game to new customers and existing ones were clearly getting wary as indicated by the games flagging sales.

Role on 8th.

kyussinchains
27-06-2010, 13:39
My feeling on this is that GW simply releases a new edition of their core games every 5 years or so, whether it's warranted or not, back since 4th edition, when the game went international and had a significant reboot, they typically release a rebooted version of the game (4th edition), then the next edition is basically a tweaked version of the last (like 5th was). It was the same with 6th and 7th edition, will probably be the same with 8th and 9th, and if anyone sticks around long enough, it will probably happen with 10th and 11th too.....

The upshot is that GW gets to start fresh and push the new edition, making money and garnering support from disenfranchised players of the previous edition who feel that the new edition will be the answer to their prayers. The vast majority of people who are looking forward to the reboot of 8th edition, are the ones who claim GW dropped the ball with 6th/7th, that army book creep, WAAC and rules lawyering ruined the game. Before that in 4th and 5th everyone complained about herohammer and overpowered, clumsy magic.

There will be abuses of the system in future, people will figure out how to use the rules competetively, and I see GW trying to combat this by introducing yet MORE random elements, random charge distances, hugely varying magic phases. The people who claim this will reduce the tactical element are at least partially correct, the combat system is already random enough to introduce the doubt into the system, removing all 100% guarantees as it is, I personally think increasing the numbers of dice you have to chuck around weakens that aspect of the game, especially in smaller games where sometimes you only have 3-4 units and can't afford to keep redunant units in reserve....

I'm only opposed to the shift to a new edition because it costs a lot of money to get started, the rulebook is Ģ45, and the army books (when they're released) will be extra, plus the cost of the new must-have uber unit or five, I'm a father now and I support my wife and kid, the amount of money I have to spend on myself has dwindled, and if it comes down to laying out another few hundred to get myself set up in 8th, or spending it on other things, GW have lost my custom.

I don't think the game will be any better or worse thanks to the new edition, it will just be different, with its own set of problems and people who incessantly whinge and complain about it, or jealously and irrationally defend it.

The next edition will be marketed as 'the best ever edition' or 'back to the spirit of the game' and all those marketing phrases GW is so fond of, and so will the next, and the next and the next.

in summary, I think it's just another moneymaking exercise from GW, I have no problem with them wanting to make a profit, but it's the fact that they market it as a paradigm shift in gaming, and act like they're doing everything to improve things for their loyal customers rather than line the pockets of their shareholders, that I take issue with.

I'll play 8th edition and perhaps I'll end up eating my words, but I doubt it!

wow that was cynical.....

WarmbloodedLizard
27-06-2010, 14:26
No offence meant to you, but all of that sounds like GW sales guff to me. Anything written about 8th in WD is going to be aimed at telling us all how great it is, and 'reasserting Warhammer's identity' sounds exactly like a sales pitch.



To me, this translates as GW realising they're rapidly losing custom to other, less ludicrously priced, games, and thus trying as hard as possible to get more new players in with this release - adding credence to the theory that 8th is a 'dumbing down' of the rules as a whole.



This is only true now, at the very outset of the edition. The competitive mentality of finding the powerlists/combos, and breaking the books, will return once those players have gotten the hang of the new rules. So I would imagine the 'listhammering' and such will not be gone from Warhammer for long.

I don't mean to direct any ill will towards the OP in this, but I can't help but feel that the 'Spirit of 8th edition' really is no different from the 'spirit' of any other edition, and any GW publication that attempts to dress it up otherwise is just sales patter. You are right that they're losing money to other games so they've made a drastic change to the rules to try and make them more accessible to new players, it's just that those changes are not universally liked. And they will still be losing players for the same reasons as before, because they do not address the issues that are actually a concern - or if they do, they go too far, and/or add in nonsensical changes as well that ruin the good ones.




In short, my sentiments exactly. Warhammer 8th might be a 'good' game in the eyes of some, but for me it isn't Warhammer any more. I think the balance between an overly competitive game that has had all the fun sucked out of it by over-analysis (I can think of at least two computer game series' that suffer from this), and a silly, 'beer and pretzels' game that doesn't require much (if any) thought to play or win, is a delicate one (neither extreme being desireable in the case of Warhammer). 7th may have been a touch too far in the former direction, but I think 8th is even moreso in the latter - which is an overall change I, and indeed many others, do not agree with.

couldn't agree more.

(I, too, thought at first that the op was sent by the GW marketing squad :D)

chamelion 6
27-06-2010, 15:45
Exactly.

They are doing the same thing that they did with 40,000. They are trying to market their games to an ever-younger audience by simplifying them and making tem more "fun". Also, the "focus on the hobby aspect" means "more stuff to sell"

meh.

Heaven forbid the game might become fun...

Seriously, I quit playing Warhammer with 6th edition and sold all my miniatures when 7th was released. I got into the game because of the fantasy element and from 5th edition into 6th I saw it go from Wharhammer Fantasy Battles to Warhammer Battles, to just Battles. Somewhere the Warhammer Fantasy part just fell to the wayside. That was as much because of the kinds of gamers the rules attracted as the rules themselves. I found myself more and more playing people that could obsessively quote every single rule in detail but didn't have the vaguest notion what the game was attempting to portray, the history of Warhammer or its armies. It was just, as somebody put it, an excuse to build armies to smash someone.

Not really saying that's good or bad, depends on how you feel about ultra competative gaming, but it was just not my thing. At least not in Warhammer. I just decided that, for me, the game was just a dull, overcomplicated tournament system with only the vaguest of connections to the fantasy world it was supposed to portray.

I see the 8th edition as exactly what GW says, a return to what Warhammer started out as... Warhammer Fantasy first, battles last. Yeah, I'm a beer and pretzels Warhammer gamer, it's a hobby and an excuse to get together with my friends and have fun. Not an obsession. To get away from the stress and grind of the real world.

I'm looking forward to 8th. I think it's gonna loose some folks because it's just not their thing. But it's gonna win back a bunch of people like me, the ones that enjoy the fantasy element of the game and thought that was what made it unique and different from other wargames.

Odin
27-06-2010, 21:54
I just don't see what's so exciting about footsloggers.

Now, skirmisher guerillas, heavy cav, dragons, stegs, wizard confederations and slamming the flank with anything bigger than a person really got me pumped up.

With the very specific exception of Bloodthirsters there wasn't anything in 7th that was powerful that I didn't view as a challenge to rise up to, that made the game not only exciting but dynamic.

I can't help but think the buffs to infantry will go too far.

In 7th, I'd hit one unit with the goal of punching through it and hitting the unit behind it. The challenge was to do that from enough angles that multiple units would hit that same target behind the lines through multiple targets, while countering my opponents attempts to do the same.

In 8th, I see combat being joined quickly but taking too long to resolve. If every unit needs to be killed to a man because infantry has so many buffs that it's insulated from breaking, I wonder if surrounding the enemy will just set you up to be surrounded.

They're what battles are all about. The other stuff should be there to add tactical options, variety and power, but battles should be primarily about the troops that characterise an army - the men of the Empire, mobs of Orcs and Goblins, hordes of Skaven, shining ranks of High Elf spearmen. If armies consist of nothing but the special stuff, then the special stuff isn't very special any more because it's the norm.

Toshiro
27-06-2010, 22:16
They're what battles are all about. The other stuff should be there to add tactical options, variety and power, but battles should be primarily about the troops that characterise an army - the men of the Empire, mobs of Orcs and Goblins, hordes of Skaven, shining ranks of High Elf spearmen. If armies consist of nothing but the special stuff, then the special stuff isn't very special any more because it's the norm.

Quoted for truth.

WarmbloodedLizard
27-06-2010, 22:28
They're what battles are all about. The other stuff should be there to add tactical options, variety and power, but battles should be primarily about the troops that characterise an army - the men of the Empire, mobs of Orcs and Goblins, hordes of Skaven, shining ranks of High Elf spearmen. If armies consist of nothing but the special stuff, then the special stuff isn't very special any more because it's the norm.

but that's just a design flaw. armies use masses of footsloggers because the don't need much equipment or training, not because they are qualitatively better than the special stuff.
It's one thing to make infantry useful and another to make them too powerful (=steadfast), so that you have to rely on them because the special stuff isn't really that good.

(for here on it's random rambling)

anyway. GW is just not that good at designing games, that's just it. They never seem to achieve any kind of balance. calling WH a beer and prezels game is just an excuse for bad design. Warhammer could just as well be a beer an prezels game with good mechanics and a good system that is compatible with both competitive and fluff players. I just don't get how one can be so bad at game design and business. They have all the ideas but seem to lack any kind of bright person holding everything together. They have no masterplan. I wish some WotC guys would go over there and help them out a little (not only in design but also marketing and business).

Odin
27-06-2010, 23:59
but that's just a design flaw. armies use masses of footsloggers because the don't need much equipment or training, not because they are qualitatively better than the special stuff.
It's one thing to make infantry useful and another to make them too powerful (=steadfast), so that you have to rely on them because the special stuff isn't really that good.

(for here on it's random rambling)

anyway. GW is just not that good at designing games, that's just it. They never seem to achieve any kind of balance. calling WH a beer and prezels game is just an excuse for bad design. Warhammer could just as well be a beer an prezels game with good mechanics and a good system that is compatible with both competitive and fluff players. I just don't get how one can be so bad at game design and business. They have all the ideas but seem to lack any kind of bright person holding everything together. They have no masterplan. I wish some WotC guys would go over there and help them out a little (not only in design but also marketing and business).

Is steadfast really too powerful? If a unit is getting it's **** kicked, it won't be very long before they no longer have enough ranks. But it will mean they are likely to hold on for a turn or two, which is far more realistic than the current system. As for balance, it's a bit early to be making a bold statement on that at such an early stage. The meta-game is pretty hard to predict, and I'm pretty sure many tactics to counter steadfast will evolve. For a start, targeting the battle standard bearer makes it much less reliable - stubborn on Ld7 or 8 without a re-roll is far from a sure thing.

Anyway, at the moment I'm just happy that my infantry will actually have proper combats, rather than just walk up to an enemy infantry unit, cause one casualty each and lose because they had a musician and I didn't.

yabbadabba
28-06-2010, 07:05
Anyway, at the moment I'm just happy that my infantry will actually have proper combats, rather than just walk up to an enemy infantry unit, cause one casualty each and lose because they had a musician and I didn't. This is the crux of the issue for me.

The new edition will be no less competitive than before, those who want to carry on being tournament competitiors will just have to adjust the skill set. Those who want more of a game, will have a game that supports that now. From what I have seen and heard, this game supports both types of players comfortably.

Idle Scholar
28-06-2010, 08:17
I just wish you could negate steadfast by flanking.

Eternus
28-06-2010, 08:53
I really like the combination of Steadfast and 2 Ranks to negate enemy Rank Bonus - this will well and truly sort out the insanity that was 3 Knights charging into the flank of a 25 strong unit of elite infantry, negating their ranks, causing more casualties than the infantry and subsequently for the infantry unit to break and be run down - this just seems crazy to me. Hundreds of points annihilated because they were flank charged by a unit only just large enough to negate their rank bonus, which is something that exists to represent the infantry's strength in numbers. Half of the infantry unit probably wouldn't even realise they had been charged in the flank, let alone run away, surely?

Also, here is a question to anyone who stated that 7th Edition as a rules set was fine and it was the differences in army book potency that caused the problems - if an army book has the potential to allow a very powerful build, seemingly far too powerful for some enemy armies to cope with, who is at fault? Is it GW for creating a book that allows such forces, even though they constantly try to push more fluffy lists, or is it players who take advantage of the fact that their book has some very powerful builds to choose from?

I'll put it this way, I think it's a combination of the two. The books should never have been written with such variance of power between them, but players are also to blame for not self regulating. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, especially when players realised full well how powerful some builds were which should have made it obvious that something would be done about it sooner or later. If they had, then 8th would not include so many things that push players to choose the kind of armies GW wants - personally I like the kind of armies GW wants us to use (general cries of 'bigger' not withstanding) so I have no problem with 8th so far, but people who got used to either having max power minimum core or max power dice armies verging on surreal, even though their books allowed it, are the ones who will simply have to change their ways to what was originally intended - though this does still allow an abundance of variation in army selection, it will hopefully just make min/max armies less viable.

I think that the FAQ's to be released next week will be very telling about what direction GW intend to take with their army books. More than for my own armies I hope that those of players who feel their army will really struggle in 8th, like Tomb Kings players, OK's etc, are the ones who's armies get the most positive attention in the FAQ's, to further reduce the power gap.

As I've said before, we are the ones who decide whether we enjoy the game or not - Fantasy Battle has been around for decades, and it's been through several incarnations, and doesn't show any signs of dissappearing quietly into the night, as long as there are players around who want to make the most of it rather than focussing on imperfections in what is otherwise a game (and a company, after everything that has been said) that has kept my attention for 17 years.

Chiron
28-06-2010, 10:26
I have to say I played a game with 2 cannons and a mortar vs Ogres last night and the cannons werent at all overpowered with the new guess rules, you still roll for distance travelled and bounce and you still might misfire.

GodlessM
28-06-2010, 10:31
Great post Eternus, +1.

Idle Scholar
28-06-2010, 10:31
this will well and truly sort out the insanity that was 3 Knights charging into the flank of a 25 strong unit of elite infantry, negating their ranks, causing more casualties than the infantry and subsequently for the infantry unit to break and be run down - this just seems crazy to me. Hundreds of points annihilated because they were flank charged by a unit only just large enough to negate their rank bonus, which is something that exists to represent the infantry's strength in numbers. Half of the infantry unit probably wouldn't even realise they had been charged in the flank, let alone run away, surely?

It seemed a fine mechanic to me. With the exception of US5 flyers or other units that ignored standard movement it took a modicum of manoeuvring to get that flank charge in and it could be countered by further manoeuvring on the part of the player getting charged.

Increasing the requirements to two ranks at the end of combat, combined with all the opportunities to reform makes flanking difficult enough. The fact that they've also reduced the reward for doing so seems a bit to much.

As far as realism goes I've always imagined each model on the field to represent 5 guys. So three cavalry hitting 25 troops is more like 15 cavalry hitting 125 troops, and that kind of works (from my experience of being charged by cavalry).




Also, here is a question to anyone who stated that 7th Edition as a rules set was fine and it was the differences in army book potency that caused the problems - if an army book has the potential to allow a very powerful build, seemingly far too powerful for some enemy armies to cope with, who is at fault? Is it GW for creating a book that allows such forces, even though they constantly try to push more fluffy lists, or is it players who take advantage of the fact that their book has some very powerful builds to choose from?

I'll put it this way, I think it's a combination of the two. The books should never have been written with such variance of power between them, but players are also to blame for not self regulating. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, especially when players realised full well how powerful some builds were which should have made it obvious that something would be done about it sooner or later. If they had, then 8th would not include so many things that push players to choose the kind of armies GW wants - personally I like the kind of armies GW wants us to use (general cries of 'bigger' not withstanding) so I have no problem with 8th so far, but people who got used to either having max power minimum core or max power dice armies verging on surreal, even though their books allowed it, are the ones who will simply have to change their ways to what was originally intended - though this does still allow an abundance of variation in army selection, it will hopefully just make min/max armies less viable.


I agree with much of this statement and I've always found playing with the WPS restrictions made for much better games. That's why it seems a shame that an edition that promotes that type of army more has a few things that may well make the game a lot less fun for me.

Eternus
28-06-2010, 11:12
It seemed a fine mechanic to me. With the exception of US5 flyers or other units that ignored standard movement it took a modicum of manoeuvring to get that flank charge in and it could be countered by further manoeuvring on the part of the player getting charged.

Increasing the requirements to two ranks at the end of combat, combined with all the opportunities to reform makes flanking difficult enough. The fact that they've also reduced the reward for doing so seems a bit to much.

As far as realism goes I've always imagined each model on the field to represent 5 guys. So three cavalry hitting 25 troops is more like 15 cavalry hitting 125 troops, and that kind of works (from my experience of being charged by cavalry).



I agree with much of this statement and I've always found playing with the WPS restrictions made for much better games. That's why it seems a shame that an edition that promotes that type of army more has a few things that may well make the game a lot less fun for me.

Hi there Lazy Student.

Maybe an interesting experiment would be to play our game of 7th Edition tomorrow night, and then in a few weeks play a game of 8th with the exact same lists and see how the new rules affect things - I don't think tailoring for 8th would have the same result, so this should show us clearly what works and what doesn't compared to 7th?

WarmbloodedLizard
28-06-2010, 11:34
but players are also to blame for not self regulating.

absolutely not. optimising lists for a certain strategy is one of the most fun things to do. If you have to restrict yourself just because the designer was totally incompetent when it comes to internal and external balance, it is entirely the designers/GWs fault.

(I do agree that 7th edition was not perfect. it needed many minor tweaks (and some big ones for magic). the problem with 8th is that it, even though it addresses some of the problems 7th had, creates a ******** of new ones that are most probably worse.)

also:
the thing about flanking made total sense. if your 200 man are flanked by 30 knights, they have a serious problem. They won't immediately run, but they will have to make a test on their leadership -1, -2 or similar. (that's btw a good idea for making flanking better: have flanked units take their steadfast at -1 and at -2 if rearcharged.)

flanking SHOULD give you quite a big bonus. but making the unit stubborn just negates any flanking-possibilities. anything that depends on the charge becomes useless. chariots, lancer cavalry, etc.? useless.

Eternus
28-06-2010, 11:48
anything that depends on the charge becomes useless. chariots, lancer cavalry, etc.? useless.

Where as in 7th getting the charge with anything remotely powerful negated the need to even bother rolling dice in many cases - a powerful unit flanking is very useful, especially if combined with a frontal charge as well. And don't forget that supporting attacks from the ranks behing the first don't count against a flank, so a flanking unit avoids the new main strength of a large block of infantry. Units that strike before Initiative order, like impact hits, are still deadly, and the balance is that small elite units can't tear through an entire battle line of large infantry blocks as efficiently as they use to be able to. People will have to spend more time co-ordinating their assault, rather than being able to rely on powerful flanking units alone.

It's all part of the push towards list balance, which doesn't mean bland, it just means fewer lop sided lists. A lop sided list is great for story driven scenarios, but not in my opinion for regular play, but I guess that's down to personal taste.

WarmbloodedLizard
28-06-2010, 12:02
Where as in 7th getting the charge with anything remotely powerful negated the need to even bother rolling dice in many cases

I agree, but there weren't that many things that were that strong. but if 5 chaos knights, a bret lance, a stegadon or a dragon charges the flank of 20 puny human swordsmen they should think about running. and if there is a problem, it lies mainly with they armybooks, not with the basic system (sure, some BRB tweaking would also have been nice).

GodlessM
28-06-2010, 12:14
absolutely not. optimising lists for a certain strategy is one of the most fun things to do. If you have to restrict yourself just because the designer was totally incompetent when it comes to internal and external balance, it is entirely the designers/GWs fault.


This sort of thing is partly what destroyed 7th edition near the end.

Nathaniel
28-06-2010, 12:32
Half way through 7th edition I watched at a GWS as a 14 year old kid with a Brettonian starting force of Knights and archers was preparing a game against a veteran Lizardmen player with two skink squads and a Saurus hero of movement doom. The setting was the Lustria campaign rules, eg sand pits and lots upon lots of jungle terrain. Watching were a red shirt and a black shirt and several other vets.

I was the only one that suggested that the game was incredibly unfair and tried to help the new player. That was the day lost all interest in 7th ed.

I am eagerly looking forward to the 8th ed starter set.

Eternus
28-06-2010, 12:35
This sort of thing is partly what destroyed 7th edition near the end.

And is also a part of the reason that 8th is forcing a greater degree of balance, hence min Core, better infantry benefits etc. If people are not prepared to play the game or the lists as intended (though determining what was intended looking at some of the army books is a different question in some cases), then the rules get altered to encourage them in the desired direction, which is what has happened. If everyone played like the majority of people I know, then the designers would not have felt that such restraints were required.

It's like many things in life - people drive down a road knowing what the speed limit is. If too many people drive over the speed limit and there are too many accidents, then you can't be suprised if they stick a speed camera or speed bumps on that road to try and force people to slow down - I think this is a similar situation - the rules changes are a response to the way a minority were playing under 7th and it's accompanying Army Books.

Idle Scholar
28-06-2010, 12:36
Hi there Lazy Student.

Maybe an interesting experiment would be to play our game of 7th Edition tomorrow night, and then in a few weeks play a game of 8th with the exact same lists and see how the new rules affect things - I don't think tailoring for 8th would have the same result, so this should show us clearly what works and what doesn't compared to 7th?

Definitely, it should be an interesting experiment.

To address your later post I think the key issue with the Warhammer system is the way the hit/wound/save system works. Stepping up and suporting attacks are both moves in the right direction but it doesn't take away the fact that you need three S3 WS3 T3 AS5 attacks to statistically beat a single S4 WS4 T4 AS5.

Steadfast is a good solution without changing the core mechanic but I still think it's poor that it removes most of the reward for flanking.

Eternus
28-06-2010, 12:38
Definitely, it should be an interesting experiment.

To address your later post I think the key issue with the Warhammer system is the way the hit/wound/save system works. Stepping up and suporting attacks are both moves in the right direction but it doesn't take away the fact that you need three S3 WS3 T3 AS5 attacks to statistically beat a single S4 WS4 T4 AS5.

Steadfast is a good solution without changing the core mechanic but I still think it's poor that it removes most of the reward for flanking.

I can see what you are saying, but under 8th Infantry Rules, still better to flank than try a frontal assault when you're using smaller units. This is why army coordination and supporting units will be critical in 8th.

willowdark
28-06-2010, 12:42
Removing the reward for flanking is really where I see the buff to infantry going too far. Minimum 2 ranks to break ranks is a bad design. 10 Knights can break ranks, but 9 can't. The net result is that, except for Bretonnia, no Knights will ever break ranks. Ever.

That's bad design. A cavalry charge to the flank should ruin all sense of coordinated effort in the receiving unit. A frontal charge, sure, infantry should hold - but not the flank. They should break, and break hard.

yabbadabba
28-06-2010, 12:46
optimising lists for a certain strategy is one of the most fun things to do. Maybe for you, but not for everyone.


If you have to restrict yourself just because the designer was totally incompetent when it comes to internal and external balance, it is entirely the designers/GWs fault. In part I agree, but only if your only goal is to set out to win.


(I do agree that 7th edition was not perfect. it needed many minor tweaks (and some big ones for magic). the problem with 8th is that it, even though it addresses some of the problems 7th had, creates a ******** of new ones that are most probably worse.) Totally disagree, as you have no idea what will happen. If you are getting the new book, play for about six months and then you might have an informed opinion. I am planning on having a proper informed opinion in about 9-12 months based purely on my own gaming exdperience.


also:
the thing about flanking made total sense. if your 200 man are flanked by 30 knights, they have a serious problem. They won't immediately run, but they will have to make a test on their leadership -1, -2 or similar. (that's btw a good idea for making flanking better: have flanked units take their steadfast at -1 and at -2 if rearcharged.) Again in part I agree, although I will refrain from second guessing what might be a good house rule for a game set hardly anyone on here has played properly or fully yet.


flanking SHOULD give you quite a big bonus. but making the unit stubborn just negates any flanking-possibilities. anything that depends on the charge becomes useless. chariots, lancer cavalry, etc.? useless. Again disagree, as they move from a primary strike role to a mobile secondary support role. As it should be against big blocks of formed infantry there should be a need to wear them down a bit before they fall apart. If the new rules reports are to be believed then this is quite a substantial shift in design philosophy for GW.

Eternus
28-06-2010, 12:56
Removing the reward for flanking is really where I see the buff to infantry going too far. Minimum 2 ranks to break ranks is a bad design. 10 Knights can break ranks, but 9 can't. The net result is that, except for Bretonnia, no Knights will ever break ranks. Ever.

That's bad design. A cavalry charge to the flank should ruin all sense of coordinated effort in the receiving unit. A frontal charge, sure, infantry should hold - but not the flank. They should break, and break hard.

Unless we follow the whacking great signposts that all the 8th Edition info is pointing to which is bigger games and bigger units. I think that standard combat cavalry unit size will be 10+ rather than 5/6 that we see in 7th.

Knights will certainly be able to break ranks and mow down entire units, if you take large units and you give the infantry a proper pasting when you charge in. The only thing that has changed is that small units of elite cavalry are not as good at defeating much larger infantry units alone as they used to be, so the option is to coordinate their attacks with other units or increase your cavalry unit size. The game has changed. We just have to identify the effects of these changes and adapt to them.

And I agree with the wise and powerful yabbadabba, we should come back to this kind of discussion in a few months time and see if opinions have changed (on either side of the debate) and what we have learned - at the moment for the most part it's still a lot of speculation, apart from those people who already have their book which must be a minority.

Odin
28-06-2010, 13:28
This sort of thing is partly what destroyed 7th edition near the end.

It's the sort of thing that has destroyed most editions of WHFB. If people focus on finding the ultimate army-build, they will find it, and you end up with every army looking pretty much the same, and everything becomes stale and boring.

I love the fact that the 8th edition book is encouraging people to make up their own rules for unique units in special scenarios. To me, WHFB should be about creating characterful armies and fighting fun battles. Not about having the same min-maxed characterless army as everybody else just to wring every last bit of advantage (and fun) out of it.


Unless we follow the whacking great signposts that all the 8th Edition info is pointing to which is bigger games and bigger units. I think that standard combat cavalry unit size will be 10+ rather than 5/6 that we see in 7th.

Knights will certainly be able to break ranks and mow down entire units, if you take large units and you give the infantry a proper pasting when you charge in. The only thing that has changed is that small units of elite cavalry are not as good at defeating much larger infantry units alone as they used to be, so the option is to coordinate their attacks with other units or increase your cavalry unit size. The game has changed. We just have to identify the effects of these changes and adapt to them.

And I agree with the wise and powerful yabbadabba, we should come back to this kind of discussion in a few months time and see if opinions have changed (on either side of the debate) and what we have learned - at the moment for the most part it's still a lot of speculation, apart from those people who already have their book which must be a minority.

Agree with all that. You can get a unit of 12 Empire Knights with Full Command for less than 300 points. They can break ranks, and dish out 13 S5 attacks and 6 S3 attacks on the charge. Add a warrior priest and you'll knacker pretty much any enemy infantry unit (combined with a frontal charge).

Add to that the fact that fast cavalry now have ranks apparently. How much does it cost to get enough Wolf Riders or Marauder Horsemen to break ranks? Not a hell of a lot.

But you can't do it with a minimum-sized unit. Well so what? It's supposed to be minimum size, not average size. If 5 light horsemen charge into the side of a 40-strong unit of infantry, the light horsemen should come off worse. 3 warhounds in the flank isn't going to worry even the most cowardly mob of goblins.

A flank attack is still a very valid tactic, but it now needs to be a proper flank attack, not just a desultory handful of light cavalry.

WarmbloodedLizard
28-06-2010, 17:05
In part I agree, but only if your only goal is to set out to win.

For me, that's what (strategy) games are about. you get together and see who is the better player/tactician/strategist. There is little reason for me to play a game that I don't want to win.



It's the sort of thing that has destroyed most editions of WHFB. If people focus on finding the ultimate army-build, they will find it, and you end up with every army looking pretty much the same, and everything becomes stale and boring.

there is no optimal build in a balanced book. it will always depend ion the metagame. and the metagame will change all the time. a balanced book also offers several strategic options that are not much less successful than the total optimal build.



I love the fact that the 8th edition book is encouraging people to make up their own rules for unique units in special scenarios. To me, WHFB should be about creating characterful armies and fighting fun battles. Not about having the same min-maxed characterless army as everybody else just to wring every last bit of advantage (and fun) out of it.

for me, it's fun to play around from time to time. but on a regular day, i want a game focussed on tactics and not scenarios and fluff. sure, the game should be made for both kinds of people. BUT scenario/fluff players DON'T NEED that a good rules system because they can just make up their own rules if the need to. players that are more interested in the raw gameplay NEED a good rules system to have fun.
so what you are saying is kind of "**** the gameplay guys"...




They can break ranks, and dish out 13 S5 attacks and 6 S3 attacks on the charge. Add a warrior priest and you'll knacker pretty much any enemy infantry unit (combined with a frontal charge).


no. they will kill some, and then the knights don't to anything anymore for the rest of the game. the frontal charge idea is nice, but you need double the points if you want 2 units vs 1 unit (probably more, since you also want more ranks. the defending unit won't just be alone. in addition, 12 knight will usually NOT break ranks. killing 2 knight models is not THAT hard.

GodlessM
28-06-2010, 17:20
killing 2 knight models is not THAT hard.

On average you have to cause 6 wounds to kill a single knight due to armour, so that's 12 to cause 2. Good luck with doing that easily as you say.

Akroma
28-06-2010, 17:49
i am quite sure that the real problem of the 7th edition were not the basic rules - but the armybooks. too many powerplay in there, too much OH OH WE DO HAVE TO MAKE THE NEW BOOK EVEN MORE AWESOME.
so many units had 2 attacks in profile - remember how rare this was in 6.ed.
then the insane armywiderules - ASF here, hate there, deamons with all their crap and so on.
instead of saying - ups, we screwed up... we have to remove all armybooks and start from zero (like in beginning of 6.ed.) they changed the rules in a way that all this cheese does not matter that much. lets remove strategy, lets kill insane amounts of units because every can strike back and from two ranks and so on that the ballance trap they ran into (with full speed!) is not that important anymore.

they pissed so many old players with a bunch of things... many of them dont buy that much anyway and the rest maybe happy. "WOW fountains of gore - man this is soooo cool..."

... but sadly this is no warhammer anymore :no:

Chiron
28-06-2010, 17:55
On average you have to cause 6 wounds to kill a single knight due to armour, so that's 12 to cause 2. Good luck with doing that easily as you say.

And the flanked unit wont get Supporting attacks to the side.., as far as I'm aware you do only need to be 1 rank wide to remove ranks as well (correct?)

Ultimate Life Form
28-06-2010, 17:59
... but sadly this is no warhammer anymore :no:

No, now it is Warhammer.



they pissed so many old players with a bunch of things... many of them dont buy that much anyway and the rest maybe happy.

You raised a very interesting point here. If you are a business company set on selling models, why would you focus your attention on a customer group that's effectively no longer a customer group? Sure they may buy the odd model or two, but GW would go bankrupt within a year's time if they had to rely solely on these self-styled long term 'supporters'. Frankly, when I hear all this endless whining I sometimes think they don't deserve better. It is perfectly legitimate and also understandable that GW want to tap into new customer groups. To that end it is necessary to adjust the system (and by that I mean everything, not just the game) so it appeals to a broader customer base. If some of the old guys (who are a negligible source of income to GW) don't make the jump then so be it; we won't miss their constant crying and moaning.

eagletsi1
28-06-2010, 18:00
actually you need to be 10 models wide or 2 ranks to remove ranks and supporting attacks.

WarmbloodedLizard
28-06-2010, 18:00
On average you have to cause 6 wounds to kill a single knight due to armour, so that's 12 to cause 2. Good luck with doing that easily as you say.

on average, by investing half the knights points cost or less, organ guns, cannons, salamanders, stone throwers, handguns, RXB, BT in the flank, or magic do around 2 wounds to knights. and there you have most armies covered (in one round of shooting. in 2 rounds, even normal XBows and skinks will kill some knights, only S3 bows won't (but you can still point those at the big unit and maybe they won't have enough ranks left to negate stubborn, making you not care whether you have a rankbonus or not.)

edit: I also think that ranks are negated at the end, right? so if you kill one by shooting and one in combat, that's enough.

yabbadabba
28-06-2010, 18:05
players that are more interested in the raw gameplay NEED a good rules system to have fun. If you want to play GW games and wnat the above with no effort, and don't want to play 8th, play Warmaster or Epic. They are much better suited to that kind of game and you will not have to get involved in these kinds of discussions.

Or you can just do what the GW Events team will do, and many, many other tournament organisers and players might have to do. Embrace the change, develop a new skill set and set out to conquer that mountain again. For all we know this could be a ruleset to satisfy both camps, especially as it will still retain the competitive element.

@ Warmbloodedlizard - what of you arrange your knights in a 5/5/2 formation? In the end, you are already beginning to calculate what it will take to get the result you want, so the new game - without you even playing enough games to understand it fully - is already stimulating the tournament minded part of you. Doesn't that say that the challenge is still there, even if the circumstances have changed?

WarmbloodedLizard
28-06-2010, 18:23
If you want to play GW games and wnat the above with no effort, and don't want to play 8th, play Warmaster or Epic. They are much better suited to that kind of game and you will not have to get involved in these kinds of discussions.

as if anyone would played those systems where I live ^^ I have a hard enough time even finding players for fantasy. (I live in switzerland) I also invested in 2 armies and was perfectly happy with 7th (well not perfectly but happy enough).



@ Warmbloodedlizard - what of you arrange your knights in a 5/5/2 formation? In the end, you are already beginning to calculate what it will take to get the result you want, so the new game - without you even playing enough games to understand it fully - is already stimulating the tournament minded part of you. Doesn't that say that the challenge is still there, even if the circumstances have changed?

of course, warhammer hasn't suddenly become a completely non-competeitive game. It, however, did lose some - maybe a lot - of its tactical variety (and realism), and has become more (not totally, just more.) random (for me, the randomness (rolling for spells, rolling to cast/dispel, irresistible, miscast, miscast table, etc.) of magic was already borderline in 7th, now I find it too much).

yabbadabba
28-06-2010, 18:35
as if anyone would played those systems where I live ^^ I have a hard enough time even finding players for fantasy. (I live in switzerland) I also invested in 2 armies and was perfectly happy with 7th (well not perfectly but happy enough). There was a time when no GW game was played where you live. Thats how most wargames grow mate - someone gets into them, buys and paints two small forces and then convinces friends to join in. However there is nothing to stop you carrying on playing 7th or ...


of course, warhammer hasn't suddenly become a completely non-competeitive game. It, however, did lose some - maybe a lot - of its tactical variety (and realism), and has become more (not totally, just more.) random (for me, the randomness (rolling for spells, rolling to cast/dispel, irresistible, miscast, miscast table, etc.) of magic was already borderline in 7th, now I find it too much). ...Quit. I know, its shocking to say, but if the new game isn't up to what you want, and you can't play 7th just pack up the armies into storage for a bit and walk away. Or try Armies of Arcana, or something else. One thing I can tell you is that 8th is here to stay, but you knew that already.

Llew
28-06-2010, 18:42
... maybe a lot - of its tactical variety (and realism)...

Realism is not present in either 7th or 8th edition. Many things in 8th edition appear....appear...to be more intuitive. Intuitive rules are a welcome change if GW wants to expand the game. They may anger the Holy High Initiates of the Mysteries of 7th Edition in trying to get more people to play, but this is a pretty easy call for them to make.

And again...a simpler, more intuitive rule set does not mean tactical variety is lost. It just means that the tactics people are used to using are gone. I would make (and have made) the argument that the randomness of charges will make for a more tactical game as you will have more problems to solve during the course of a game.

Also, rolling more dice in a combat allows for a wider *variation* in outcomes of a combat, but it also tends to reinforce that, all other things being equal, the better unit wins. So while the Steadfast is a nod to making core infantry more useful, the increased combat dice are a nod to keeping elites worthwhile.

Malorian
28-06-2010, 19:11
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks.

The game has changed and people will either change with it or quit, and given how most of us have a lot of money tied into this hobby we might as long go with it.

Go out, have fun, and find a way to make the new rules work for you.

WarmbloodedLizard
28-06-2010, 19:29
@llew: of course there is realism in the game. Of course, it is abstracted into a model but that model describes, to a certain degree, reality. Warhammer is, after all, based on reality. an example of the loss in realism: When you flank a unit in real life, it WILL break most of the time. Only the most disciplined units wouldn't (=stubborn). now, with steadfast, suddenly, every units of a certain size behave like elites. a bonus to leadership or similar would have been much more realistic (if you don't like the word, I'll say more similar to how it would work in reality). (e.g. add your ranks minus enemy ranks to your leadership for break tests up to a maximum Ld of 10 [no negatives if you have less ranks, of course])




It doesn't matter what anyone thinks.

The game has changed and people will either change with it or quit, and given how most of us have a lot of money tied into this hobby we might as long go with it.

Go out, have fun, and find a way to make the new rules work for you.

That's how it is. But I still wanna bitch about 8th for a little while. :)

GodlessM
28-06-2010, 19:54
on average, by investing half the knights points cost or less, organ guns, cannons, salamanders, stone throwers, handguns, RXB, BT in the flank, or magic do around 2 wounds to knights. and there you have most armies covered (in one round of shooting. in 2 rounds, even normal XBows and skinks will kill some knights, only S3 bows won't (but you can still point those at the big unit and maybe they won't have enough ranks left to negate stubborn, making you not care whether you have a rankbonus or not.)

Now see if we are able to keep bringing in new units and what ifs this will go on forever. I worked on your example, so you can't go changing the variables now to suit your point.

WarmbloodedLizard
28-06-2010, 20:07
Now see if we are able to keep bringing in new units and what ifs this will go on forever. I worked on your example, so you can't go changing the variables now to suit your point.

I was always arguing with additional units. of course 30 halberdiers + 12 knights are stronger than 30 halberdiers...

I'm just saying that you need more knights to reliably deny ranks. and you need them IN ADDITION to a unit to the front with more ranks than the target unit.

Llew
28-06-2010, 20:07
@llew: of course there is realism in the game. Of course, it is abstracted into a model but that model describes, to a certain degree, reality. Warhammer is, after all, based on reality. an example of the loss in realism: When you flank a unit in real life, it WILL break most of the time. Only the most disciplined units wouldn't (=stubborn). now, with steadfast, suddenly, every units of a certain size behave like elites. a bonus to leadership or similar would have been much more realistic (if you don't like the word, I'll say more similar to how it would work in reality). (e.g. add your ranks minus enemy ranks to your leadership for break tests up to a maximum Ld of 10 [no negatives if you have less ranks, of course])





That's how it is. But I still wanna bitch about 8th for a little while. :)

And yet the common response to a flanking movement was to refuse the flank and extend your troops -- something that actually doesn't happen in Warhammer because the movement model is so static that it doesn't model much of anything.

Also, while flanking was the key to many battles, it wasn't flanking with a handful of guys -- it was flanking in force. You hit the enemy with a strong force in the flank and they ran. And if you didn't have a force to their front pinning them in place, they just turned to face you. Again...not modelled in Warhammer.

One could make the argument that the reason flanking was such an effective battlefield tactic is not because guys were beside you, but because you were engaged on two fronts, and frequently by superior numbers, or at least similar ones.

Games are modelled, in theory, on reality, but I would say that WFB is modelled less on it than most. In fact, so little reality shows through that it's really just a game with only the barest nod to reality. It's just not realistic (or any other euphemism to try to get that concept across).

That doesn't mean it can't be fun, but I guarantee they're not using it as a basis for sims at West Point.

GodlessM
28-06-2010, 20:10
I was always arguing with additional units. of course 30 halberdiers + 12 knights are stronger than 30 halberdiers...

I'm just saying that you need more knights to reliably deny ranks. and you need them IN ADDITION to a unit to the front with more ranks than the target unit.

All well in good apart from the fact that you don't but whatever, this is going nowhere and I don't care enough.

WarmbloodedLizard
28-06-2010, 20:16
All well in good apart from the fact that you don't but whatever, this is going nowhere and I don't care enough.

I really don't see what you mean. knights alone into the flank of a big stubborn unit are pretty meaningless. (or did I miss your point?)

enygma7
28-06-2010, 20:29
a good company would try to make a system for all groups, old & young, newbies or veterans.

This isn't a vets versus noobs or even a competetive players vs. fluff gamers issue. I'm both a vet and I take my tactics seriously - and I welcome the 8th ed changes as do many other vets here.

I keep hearing that 8th will be some tactical wasteland of random dice rolling but have seen nothing to convince me of this. Most of the complaints seem to stem from the idea that certain old tactics will no longer work or that certain actions now involve dice rolling, with no effort made to seek ways (of which there are many) to adapt or to manage and eliminate the risks. Good tactics is about adopting the best approach to the current reality of the situation. I suspect in time 8th will prove to be a far more tactically interesting and skillful game than 7th.

grumbaki
28-06-2010, 20:42
"a serious company tries to hold customers and tries to pull new people (i hope you are able to get some examples without help). GW tries last and forgets about point nr.1"

In all honesty, I see 8th edition as being in part about making veterans buy more stuff. In my Empire army I have about 50 state troopers and 20 flagellants. Not nearly enough for 8th edition. If I want to use my Empire army again in more than 1000 points, I had better get more models.

They also do more for us veteran players in addressing issues of movement being far too easy (we can all eyeball 8'' and 10'' for charges) and magic more fair (even without a scroll caddy you get enough dispel dice to make a dent in the magic phase). There will always be stuff we don't like, but I think that, at least this time, GW has tried to get more money out of all of us. ;)

yabbadabba
28-06-2010, 22:03
Lets dispell some myths:

the point is - if some people spended hundrets and thousands of dollars (and yes, we are talking about that level) they should have some "rights". because they gave their money to that company. and in principle, they have a lot more money to spend than 16 year old kids. The only rights you enjoy are the standard customer rights in your country. I have been playing all types of wargames and rpg's for the past 25+ years, and the last 2 editions of WFB have been the least satisfying. Does that give me more of your "rights" over others? Does that give me the right to insist you wait for your edition as long as I have had to wait for mine? Of course not. So, there are no rights at stake here other than standard customer rights.


but GW keeps going to ignore these people. a good company would try to make a system for all groups, old & young, newbies or veterans. split rules in 2 - one for people who like strats, or a cut down version for people who like to make a fast game and dont want to think too much about armystyle / composition and so on. I think I understand where you are going with this. First you have no proof that this edition is any less competitive than the last. You have no evidence either way that this edition does or doesn't address this. In addition you can play WFB at 500 pts under 7th ed, and its probably the same in 8th Ed. With the trend at 40K what we will see is add ons and possible a relaunch of Legendary Battles, so GW could achieve with this edition not only what you have asked for, but more besides and more than they have for a few editions. So indications are that twhat you have asked for will be provided. In addition the game remains competitive so even tournament players can play on.


GW screws on veterans! thats why the company deserves to die! GW assumes that "veterans" are more than capable of looking after themselves and do not need to be spoon fed. However, you are entitled to your p.o.v.


by the way - people who have no idea about tactics and are too busy to read into these "oh so complex" old rules are the largest part of people who dont even paint their models. that is my experience and i heard that from many others. these guys, who love that game so much have to decide about the games future.
people who will stay into that game for 3 years maybe... wow, if that is the goal we are aiming for warhammer is really dead. This is harder to read. So are you saying that people who don't paint their models care less for their hobby? What about people who don't even make their own gaming tables to play at home or a club - do they count? Or those who ask a professional to paint their army? Surely if you spent the money, you retain the right over the how? Do I become less of a hobbyist if I buy no miniatures this year, but paint the ones I have and spend all my money on DVD's? Or vice versa?
The great thing about this hobby is anyone can enjoy it in any style they chose. So, we see that not only is their no relationship between skill ability or choice and any indication of hobby quality, but that everyone who wants to take part in this hobby is entitled to do it how they choose.
Not sure about your last comment at all.

MalusCalibur
28-06-2010, 22:17
Also, here is a question to anyone who stated that 7th Edition as a rules set was fine and it was the differences in army book potency that caused the problems - if an army book has the potential to allow a very powerful build, seemingly far too powerful for some enemy armies to cope with, who is at fault? Is it GW for creating a book that allows such forces, even though they constantly try to push more fluffy lists, or is it players who take advantage of the fact that their book has some very powerful builds to choose from?

It's both, as you rightly state. GW should work much harder to avoid the kind of 'uberlists' 7th produced being possible, and players should have enough courtesy or creativity to avoid those lists outside of 'hardcore' tournaments.


I think that the FAQ's to be released next week will be very telling about what direction GW intend to take with their army books.

I wouldn't so so sure about that. The rumoured errata will be unlikely to make any balance related changes to the army books - they will literally be clarity text that makes sure everything can work properly under 8th's core rules.



My feeling on this is that GW simply releases a new edition of their core games every 5 years or so, whether it's warranted or not, back since 4th edition, when the game went international and had a significant reboot, they typically release a rebooted version of the game (4th edition), then the next edition is basically a tweaked version of the last (like 5th was). It was the same with 6th and 7th edition, will probably be the same with 8th and 9th, and if anyone sticks around long enough, it will probably happen with 10th and 11th too.....

The upshot is that GW gets to start fresh and push the new edition, making money and garnering support from disenfranchised players of the previous edition who feel that the new edition will be the answer to their prayers. The vast majority of people who are looking forward to the reboot of 8th edition, are the ones who claim GW dropped the ball with 6th/7th, that army book creep, WAAC and rules lawyering ruined the game. Before that in 4th and 5th everyone complained about herohammer and overpowered, clumsy magic.

There will be abuses of the system in future, people will figure out how to use the rules competetively, and I see GW trying to combat this by introducing yet MORE random elements, random charge distances, hugely varying magic phases. The people who claim this will reduce the tactical element are at least partially correct, the combat system is already random enough to introduce the doubt into the system, removing all 100% guarantees as it is, I personally think increasing the numbers of dice you have to chuck around weakens that aspect of the game, especially in smaller games where sometimes you only have 3-4 units and can't afford to keep redunant units in reserve....

I'm only opposed to the shift to a new edition because it costs a lot of money to get started, the rulebook is Ģ45, and the army books (when they're released) will be extra, plus the cost of the new must-have uber unit or five, I'm a father now and I support my wife and kid, the amount of money I have to spend on myself has dwindled, and if it comes down to laying out another few hundred to get myself set up in 8th, or spending it on other things, GW have lost my custom.

I don't think the game will be any better or worse thanks to the new edition, it will just be different, with its own set of problems and people who incessantly whinge and complain about it, or jealously and irrationally defend it.

The next edition will be marketed as 'the best ever edition' or 'back to the spirit of the game' and all those marketing phrases GW is so fond of, and so will the next, and the next and the next.

in summary, I think it's just another moneymaking exercise from GW, I have no problem with them wanting to make a profit, but it's the fact that they market it as a paradigm shift in gaming, and act like they're doing everything to improve things for their loyal customers rather than line the pockets of their shareholders, that I take issue with.

I'll play 8th edition and perhaps I'll end up eating my words, but I doubt it!

wow that was cynical.....

I know I frequently do this, but I have to strongly agree with this paragraph. I think it represents my attitude perfectly.

I think my problem with 8th ed isn't so much connected to the rules themselves anymore, but the overall attitude of the community (and by community I mean Warseer, lets be honest with ourselves), and of GW themselves, regarding the change.
Ultimately, if the new rules don't appeal to me personally (and they don't) then I won't play them, and I don't stand to lose all that much - I still have my armies (most of which aren't even close to finished), I still have all the books and lore, hell, I still have 40K stuff that I can focus on. The few people I can play against these days will most likely stick with 7th too. Additionally, I don't even neccesarily think the rules will be a completely dumbed down affair that 'isn't worth playing' by anyone, though I do still think there had been an element of simplification that *I* don't think was needed.
No, my main probem is with the reaction to 8th, and of *both* attitudes. I think the rudeness of both sides has been atrocious, and I know I've been guilty of a few envenomed jabs. Pro-8th's pour hatred and scorn on the previous edition, writing it off as unplayable, likening it to a witch or a terrible disease, and praising the new one like some kind of messiah, sneering at any 'powergamers' who dare to defend the previous one, or criticise 8th. Meanwhile, the Anti-8th's complain the game has had all tactics surgically removed, that it is overly random and a 'beer and pretzels' affair, swear that GW are scum and that they'll never play again and that Warhammer is completely ruined, all while sneering at any who dare to defend the new one, or criticise 7th. The important thing to remember is that BOTH of those extreme attitudes are wrong (and yes, I'm aware my own sentiments have erred on the latter side there).
It is indeed the attitude of the 'Pro-8th's' (on the whole, not all of them) that is partially putting me off even trying the game.

The other problem for me is GW themselves, and is probably more of an issue. As a vet it is difficult not to get disillusioned as you watch your once favourite company spiralling further into incompetence, ignorance, and failure, always trying to snare new customers while trying harder to treat vets dreadfully - it's not a case of having, or not having, 'rights', but more a case of basic customer service - I thought the idea was to treat a customer in such a way that they want to return? Not forget about them the moment they've handed money over. With the latest price hikes I made the decision not to support them any more - the rules rewrite 8th brings just makes me cynical about their motives, and I immediately disregard all the 'bring life back into the game', 'focus on the hobby aspect', 'Warhammer back to its roots' nonsense that they spout, and that many Pro-8th's seem to repeat. 8th will do as much to 'fix' the game as any other edition has - i.e., nothing, once the honeymoon period is over. New editions come like clockwork and the improvement is not cumulative. I'd say discussions over 9th edition will be exactly the same as those we're having now over 8th, but I believe (or maybe it's more hope) that there will not be a 9th edition.

8th is just another edition. It's not the best, it's not the messiah, and it's a very naughty boy (sorry). I've chosen to opt out of it, and as such don't feel I (or others) should be called a powergamer, written off as 'afraid of change', or any of the other myriad of insults because I have taken to dislike a new set of rules.

Apologies for the long rant there. But that's my final word on 8th edition now, so I will do all you 'Pro-8ths' the courtesy of buggering off to the MP&T/Project Log subforums!

GodlessM
28-06-2010, 22:49
if some people spended hundrets and thousands of dollars

If you are spending that much on this hobby then you are either doing something wrong shopping wise. I spend on average 100-150euro on an army, and in dollars that goes up.

Odin
28-06-2010, 22:54
no. they will kill some, and then the knights don't to anything anymore for the rest of the game. the frontal charge idea is nice, but you need double the points if you want 2 units vs 1 unit (probably more, since you also want more ranks. the defending unit won't just be alone. in addition, 12 knight will usually NOT break ranks. killing 2 knight models is not THAT hard.

No, you need double the points if you want to win in one round. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. After all, the other main advantage with massed infantry, apart from them being cheap, is that they're a bugger to shift. Even if the first couple of ranks start getting worries, the pressure from behind will generally keep them in the fight until the casualties really start racking up. Heavy cavalry's job throughout most of history has been to finish the job once the enemy are already weakened. Start with the missile troops, then send in the infantry, then the cavalry to break them once they're properly weakened.

Ultimate Life Form
29-06-2010, 03:03
If you are spending that much on this hobby then you are either doing something wrong shopping wise. I spend on average 100-150euro on an army, and in dollars that goes up.

Yes, but some people don't only buy the necessary minimum amount of models but also a few more because they simply are so shiny and aweseome. :angel:

A good number of my models is redundant, but I would not want to miss them. It's the collector's approach (and it's a strong incentive beyond any rules).

Thortek
29-06-2010, 03:15
Since I've only played a hand full of 7th ed rules I don't have much exp, but the handful of 8th ed games i've played is soooooo much better.

chamelion 6
29-06-2010, 04:03
It's both, as you rightly state. GW should work much harder to avoid the kind of 'uberlists' 7th produced being possible, and players should have enough courtesy or creativity to avoid those lists outside of 'hardcore' tournaments.



I wouldn't so so sure about that. The rumoured errata will be unlikely to make any balance related changes to the army books - they will literally be clarity text that makes sure everything can work properly under 8th's core rules.




I know I frequently do this, but I have to strongly agree with this paragraph. I think it represents my attitude perfectly.

I think my problem with 8th ed isn't so much connected to the rules themselves anymore, but the overall attitude of the community (and by community I mean Warseer, lets be honest with ourselves), and of GW themselves, regarding the change.
Ultimately, if the new rules don't appeal to me personally (and they don't) then I won't play them, and I don't stand to lose all that much - I still have my armies (most of which aren't even close to finished), I still have all the books and lore, hell, I still have 40K stuff that I can focus on. The few people I can play against these days will most likely stick with 7th too. Additionally, I don't even neccesarily think the rules will be a completely dumbed down affair that 'isn't worth playing' by anyone, though I do still think there had been an element of simplification that *I* don't think was needed.
No, my main probem is with the reaction to 8th, and of *both* attitudes. I think the rudeness of both sides has been atrocious, and I know I've been guilty of a few envenomed jabs. Pro-8th's pour hatred and scorn on the previous edition, writing it off as unplayable, likening it to a witch or a terrible disease, and praising the new one like some kind of messiah, sneering at any 'powergamers' who dare to defend the previous one, or criticise 8th. Meanwhile, the Anti-8th's complain the game has had all tactics surgically removed, that it is overly random and a 'beer and pretzels' affair, swear that GW are scum and that they'll never play again and that Warhammer is completely ruined, all while sneering at any who dare to defend the new one, or criticise 7th. The important thing to remember is that BOTH of those extreme attitudes are wrong (and yes, I'm aware my own sentiments have erred on the latter side there).
It is indeed the attitude of the 'Pro-8th's' (on the whole, not all of them) that is partially putting me off even trying the game.

The other problem for me is GW themselves, and is probably more of an issue. As a vet it is difficult not to get disillusioned as you watch your once favourite company spiralling further into incompetence, ignorance, and failure, always trying to snare new customers while trying harder to treat vets dreadfully - it's not a case of having, or not having, 'rights', but more a case of basic customer service - I thought the idea was to treat a customer in such a way that they want to return? Not forget about them the moment they've handed money over. With the latest price hikes I made the decision not to support them any more - the rules rewrite 8th brings just makes me cynical about their motives, and I immediately disregard all the 'bring life back into the game', 'focus on the hobby aspect', 'Warhammer back to its roots' nonsense that they spout, and that many Pro-8th's seem to repeat. 8th will do as much to 'fix' the game as any other edition has - i.e., nothing, once the honeymoon period is over. New editions come like clockwork and the improvement is not cumulative. I'd say discussions over 9th edition will be exactly the same as those we're having now over 8th, but I believe (or maybe it's more hope) that there will not be a 9th edition.

8th is just another edition. It's not the best, it's not the messiah, and it's a very naughty boy (sorry). I've chosen to opt out of it, and as such don't feel I (or others) should be called a powergamer, written off as 'afraid of change', or any of the other myriad of insults because I have taken to dislike a new set of rules.

Apologies for the long rant there. But that's my final word on 8th edition now, so I will do all you 'Pro-8ths' the courtesy of buggering off to the MP&T/Project Log subforums!

I understand where you are coming from. It was exactly the same for me during the transisition from 5th to 6th. It was less the rules that put me off as it was the attitudes of the people involved. I feel I was pushe out of the hobby for the most part. I've tried to sensitive to that and not be provocative about it. I'd rather voice what I like and don't live and have a civil discussion. Mainly because I'm still deciding whether or not to get back into the game and I'm weighing the pros and cons myself.

It seems to me 7th edition wasn't really a success fo the company. As much as some liked what it offered it wasn;t bringing in new players and the existing ones weren't investing enough to make it viable. From 6th to 7th the game just started to dry up. During 5th edition 40K was a rare sight around here.... Since 7th edition rolled out I've not seen a single friendly game and several of the game shops that specialized in WFB have cloed up and gone away.

The reality is that for what ever reason, the complexity of the rules or the attitudes of the majority of the people playing it, it simply wasn't popular to enough people to sustain it. It went from the cornerstone game of the company to a floundering backwater game. I think that's why this edition came out so early compared to past revisions.

There is a real tragedy in the fact the players of the game are so polarized and don't mix well... But that's the reality of it. I'm not gonna say that the competative gamers are a bad lot, but I encountered enough attitude and intolerance over the last few years to say I'm not going to miss that part of it.

I'm a beer and pretzels WFB player. It was always an excuse to get together, roll some dice, and have a good time. I'm feeling this is a return to those days.

UberBeast
29-06-2010, 04:03
what he does not even think about is this -
a serious company tries to hold customers and tries to pull new people (i hope you are able to get some examples without help). GW tries last and forgets about point nr.1


100% with you. I figure I've spent over $25,000 on GW products in the last 14 years (and that's a very conservative estimate). I just finished purchasing my last army about four months ago. I would be considering another army right now except that I hate the changes to 8th edition. It isn't a tactical ruleset, neither are the new rules intuitive.

I had already stopped playing 40k reguarly with the release of 5th edition, and had found 7th edition warhammer fantasy to be a nice refuge for myself and the large group of people in my area who wanted something a little more tactical that still had mainstream GW support. I still had complaints about the game, but they were with the army books and not the core rules which were pretty solid in my opinion. The only saving grace that I see in GW's current line of games are their specialist and historical ranges (both of which I will still play despite GWs attempts to minimize them).

Before anyone loudly proclaims their joy at my departure, figure this: I used to personally introduce dozens of people to WFB and W40k every year. My position as a game store employee, professional painter, and game coordinator is pretty widespread in my area. I've been mentioned and had my work and myself photographed in two recent issues of Wargames Illustrated. I'm not the the only person who is through with GW. It's bad news for GW gaming in general when die-hard GW fans finally turn their backs on the company because of short-sighted decisions like constant price hikes and the dumbing down of their core games.

chamelion 6
29-06-2010, 04:24
100% with you. I figure I've spent over $25,000 on GW products in the last 14 years (and that's a very conservative estimate). I just finished purchasing my last army about four months ago. I would be considering another army right now except that I hate the changes to 8th edition. It isn't a tactical ruleset, neither are the new rules intuitive.

I had already stopped playing 40k reguarly with the release of 5th edition, and had found 7th edition warhammer fantasy to be a nice refuge for myself and the large group of people in my area who wanted something a little more tactical that still had mainstream GW support. I still had complaints about the game, but they were with the army books and not the core rules which were pretty solid in my opinion. The only saving grace that I see in GW's current line of games are their specialist and historical ranges (both of which I will still play despite GWs attempts to minimize them).

Before anyone loudly proclaims their joy at my departure, figure this: I used to personally introduce dozens of people to WFB and W40k every year. My position as a game store employee, professional painter, and game coordinator is pretty widespread in my area. I've been mentioned and had my work and myself photographed in two recent issues of Wargames Illustrated. I'm not the the only person who is through with GW. It's bad news for GW gaming in general when die-hard GW fans finally turn their backs on the company because of short-sighted decisions like constant price hikes and the dumbing down of their core games.

Nobody is happy to see you go... well at least I'm not. But why are you taking a revision in a ruleset so personally?

The problem is that amongst the people that play 7th you're in the minority. Of all the gamers I know that are jumping up and down about the change, most own 1 ir two smallish armies. They only buy what works for them, have no interest in the backgound of the game... They really have very little invested in it compared to the "fluff" players like myself that by some of everything the list has to offer and field in anyway because that is the character of the army.

GW is trying to cater to the market that invests the most in the system, and traditionaly those people that were attracted to the fantasy element of the game. When the game went from 5th to 6th I felt just as alienated and cast off by the company. Didn't take it quite so personally, but eventually I sold all my WFB stuff ande walked away.

Personally I love 40K 5th and find it much more tacticly challenging than 4th. Sure... the way I played under the 4th edition fell on it's face and I went over ten straight games before I sat down and started from scratch again. My current army has much more variety and depth in it than the previous army. It's more flexible and more functionable and it was the change in the rules that brought that about.

I think too many people are taking this whole thing far too personally and might try looking at it with a fresh point of view. But ultimately it's still a personal decision.

UberBeast
29-06-2010, 04:57
Nobody is happy to see you go... well at least I'm not. But why are you taking a revision in a ruleset so personally?

I think too many people are taking this whole thing far too personally and might try looking at it with a fresh point of view. But ultimately it's still a personal decision.

People tend to take it personally when they invest large sums of money into a product only to have the company systematically destroy everything they like about the product in an effort to sell it to someone else.

I've made investments in a product that I enjoyed at the time of purchase and I expected GW to reinvest part of that money into maintaining a certain standard. Instead they have systematically dropped half of the things that made their brand interesting or accessable (Specialist games, bitz orders, 2-day Games Day conventions that were actually fun, the Outrider program, massive narrated summer campaigns...) and dumbed down or limited everything else I enjoyed (Besides the obvious two: Warhammer Fantasy RPG turned into a board game, Warhammer historical now only available through Forgeworld UK direct, Epic 40k first dumbed down then almost entirely removed from the site for maintainance and then never replaced, list goes on...)

Really, I could list around a hundred moves GW has made over the last 5-6 years that have really ticked a lot of people off, but instead I'll focus on what they have done for us.

Price hikes, both obvious and subtle. The obvious ones are the increased retail costs, the drop in models available for cost, the increased cost of rulebooks, etc...

The subtle ones are involved in their rule writting. Codex and armybook creep to promote spending arms-races, focusing on getting people to play larger games with larger units (Apocalypse, 8th edition WFB), turning content in White Dwarf and Website from a large supply of hobby and gaming related articles to nothing but product advertising giving you less for your money.

I've gone on at some length more than I intended to so I'll just finish with this: Part of me will always love GW and enjoy the many great memories I have of their formerly great games, and hobby support. If they ever do get new management and return to times when the hobby came first and the money followed quality, then I'll be back. Until then though, I can't justify investing my time and money into a company that won't invest some of it back into the quality of their products and services.

rocdocta
29-06-2010, 05:39
i think alot of people like myself are so annoyed at the dumbing down of warhammer due to always seeing our game as the true test of generalmanship and that 40k and WOTR are a beginners game for kids. Now in one fell swoop, our game is dropped to their level of "skill" ie the 4+. All in the name of more sales to kids with a 5 second gold fish ttention span.

HeroFox
29-06-2010, 05:53
i think alot of people like myself are so annoyed at the dumbing down of warhammer due to always seeing our game as the true test of generalmanship and that 40k and WOTR are a beginners game for kids. Now in one fell swoop, our game is dropped to their level of "skill" ie the 4+. All in the name of more sales to kids with a 5 second gold fish ttention span.

Yeah this pretty much explains all the fears I have with 8th.

Random, easy to do this and easy to do that makes for a very casual and easy to learn game, but the bar has been dropped and the plateau has been lowered.

Warhammer in 8th, whether you like it or not, will close the gap between the new and the old. It will be a lot easier to play, and a lot easier to master.

Kinda like SC2 vs. SC1.

Codsticker
29-06-2010, 06:29
Lets try to be civil... I have removed a number of posts that were rude or responses to rude posts.

Codsticker

The Warseer Mod Squad

Har666
29-06-2010, 06:45
I haven't been able to get my hands on the rule rule book as yet, but from what I have seen in the rumours so far 8th Ed should be easy to play but hard to master.

They have removed the focus of guessing ranges from the game, but with the new combat rules (Steadfast, step up etc) good positioning of your units and target selection are more important than ever.

I really don't think there has been any "dumbing down", but there has definitely been a change to the skills that people will use in the game. Being able to judge the risk/reward involved in charging and choosing the right targets will be more important now, which I think will add some more interesting dynamics to the games as a whole.

chamelion 6
29-06-2010, 06:54
People tend to take it personally when they invest large sums of money into a product only to have the company systematically destroy everything they like about the product in an effort to sell it to someone else.

I've made investments in a product that I enjoyed at the time of purchase and I expected GW to reinvest part of that money into maintaining a certain standard. Instead they have systematically dropped half of the things that made their brand interesting or accessable (Specialist games, bitz orders, 2-day Games Day conventions that were actually fun, the Outrider program, massive narrated summer campaigns...) and dumbed down or limited everything else I enjoyed (Besides the obvious two: Warhammer Fantasy RPG turned into a board game, Warhammer historical now only available through Forgeworld UK direct, Epic 40k first dumbed down then almost entirely removed from the site for maintainance and then never replaced, list goes on...)

Really, I could list around a hundred moves GW has made over the last 5-6 years that have really ticked a lot of people off, but instead I'll focus on what they have done for us.

Price hikes, both obvious and subtle. The obvious ones are the increased retail costs, the drop in models available for cost, the increased cost of rulebooks, etc...

The subtle ones are involved in their rule writting. Codex and armybook creep to promote spending arms-races, focusing on getting people to play larger games with larger units (Apocalypse, 8th edition WFB), turning content in White Dwarf and Website from a large supply of hobby and gaming related articles to nothing but product advertising giving you less for your money.

I've gone on at some length more than I intended to so I'll just finish with this: Part of me will always love GW and enjoy the many great memories I have of their formerly great games, and hobby support. If they ever do get new management and return to times when the hobby came first and the money followed quality, then I'll be back. Until then though, I can't justify investing my time and money into a company that won't invest some of it back into the quality of their products and services.

I understande your frustration as it happened to me going from 5th to 6th. Pretty much everything I loved about the game dried up. Codex creep has been a part of the game since the first codex. And suprisingly a lot of people WANT the access and means to play those larger game. Apocalypse and the like was directed at a group of people that have been wanting a game like that for ages. It wasn't and insidious and subversive plot to rope you into anything.

And while you feel they've destroyed your game to harm you, others, like me, feel they've finally come back to their senses. And the decision to support one philosophy over another was driven by business. If WFB 7 was raking in the big bucks we'd have seen minor changes. Something this drastic happens when things aren't going so well.

What you see as dumbed down, I see as a change in focus. It's unfortunate it can't be all things to all people but that's the way it is. Again, if you're that angry then it's best you move on, That's what I did after the big change from 5th. I wasn't so angry about it, I just realizewd what I wanted out of the game was different than most and the company had to cater to the market. At that time nobody was interested in playing 5th and I had a substancial investment in it. I managed to get pretty good at it, but I just wasn't having much fun. When 7th came out I saw the writing and sold all my stuff. Why not get past the emotion of it. The game isn't even released, most haven't even rolled a single die, and already your're certain the game is useless... I played 6th edition for a year before I gave up on it.

That's just the way it works. They didn't set out to trash your beloved game and just make a bunch or arbritrary bad decisions. From 5th to 6th they made an effort to attract a more hard core crowd hoping they original crowd would stay on board. The two didn't mix well and the Fantasy gamers moved on. Now they want the Fantasy gamers back. They've made efforts to attract them back several times over the years. The General's Compendium comes to mind. But the real problem was not so much the rules as the overly competative nature of culture surrounding the rules.

That may not be you, but I promise, I've run into all to many of them and their posts are all over this thread.

And in the end, people are gonna vote with their dollars. I believe that was the reason for this change. We'll see how people vote. Right now it seems to me the really upset folks are a small but vocal group. The people welcoming the change appear to be a much larger and less vocal group. GW isn't a charatible orginization in business just to make gamers all warm and fuzzy. I'm sure they'd like to do that, most of thes guys are gamers too. But if a game system is hemoraging the company after years of being the cornerstone game, they they really don't have much choice but to go a different direction... In a few years, if the game continues to slide, we'll probably see another drastic change.

chamelion 6
29-06-2010, 06:56
I haven't been able to get my hands on the rule rule book as yet, but from what I have seen in the rumours so far 8th Ed should be easy to play but hard to master.

They have removed the focus of guessing ranges from the game, but with the new combat rules (Steadfast, step up etc) good positioning of your units and target selection are more important than ever.

I really don't think there has been any "dumbing down", but there has definitely been a change to the skills that people will use in the game. Being able to judge the risk/reward involved in charging and choosing the right targets will be more important now, which I think will add some more interesting dynamics to the games as a whole.

I've read some of the rule book. That's exactly how I see the new game. People are playing the game like 7th and not really grasping all the changes yet.

yabbadabba
29-06-2010, 08:22
I can understand how some people are feeling uncomfortable and a bit unloved at the moment. The last two editions of WFB have made me feel the same way as the style of gaming I love and enjoy was just not supported by the editions or the community.

I can understand those who are in a kind of euphoria at this edition of WFB, it appears the return of something many of us have loved and missed. Bear in mind though the army books have yet to be rewritten

However when people start to present personal, unsupported opinion as fact, then you know we have moved from discussing about a wargame to talking about religions, and that way madness and misery lies.

This conversation will now have some relevance for me in about 12 months. I'm out of here.

Akroma
29-06-2010, 08:34
...

Your points are absolutely correct.
Many small things come together - prices are a big thing here. Some boxes are so ridiculously over the top. Dark Riders for example - still the old (ugly) models, one in a blister, metal for the most famous core choice.
Other things - they introduce this slayer warmachine for a campaign and remove it immediately.
and so on and so on...
you can follow the "decay" in the white dwarf: it probably began with release of LotR (at least I realized it here) - the content for 40k and WHF was cut down massively.
Almost no backgroundstories, no big campaigns as you already said.
I bought some Inquisitor and Gothic Models, for example - big big mistake...
When they announced stylish buildings for every race (think it was at the beginning of 6.ed.) I really was happy - but they stopped that after 2 or 3 models.

What was the price of the vampirebloodknights? That is so insane...
I am still waiting for plastic stuff going more up, overtaking the metal it replaced before. Less than 10% of former manufacturing costs and and same end price...

for me too much came together, already had trouble with 7th ed and mainly the GW style, but now it :eek:

Eternus
29-06-2010, 09:00
Ok, just gonna have a very quick niggle, and then make a huge point.

Niggle - The introduction of Random Charges has been mentioned many many times over the last few weeks, and even just in this thread, and I just wanted to say, again, it only affects the charge. The rest of the movement phase is virtually unaffected. So if you make sure you are within a resonable distance of your target, you should get your charge in the majority of the time. If your unit fluffs it's roll badly, take it up with the unit champion.

Huge Point - I have felt this way about these games for a while now. As far as I am concerned, regardless of who's name is on the books and the models, this is our game, not GW's. Once it's in the public domain in many ways, we are in control. The groups with the most influence are the majority, and those with the loudest voices. I certainly out my self in the latter, and I hope veterans make up the majority. We don't decide what the core Rule Book and the Army Books say, but we control how the hobby is conducted. From memory of when I started out all those years ago, the newbies look to us to lead, they learn from us, and they aspire to play like we do, build armies like we do and paint like some of us do. If the veterans make their presence felt, make their voices heard, and take the lead in how the hobby is conducted, then we will be in control. If the veterans - who are the heart of this hobby - decide to abandon their long term commitment rather than take control of this new edition, then the hobby will be left to GW and the newbies to run, and then where would we be?

This game, and this community, is what we make it, not what anybody else says it is. We play the new Edition, we work through all the new challenges it brings and we make it work for us - all of us. The fact is it's here, and I would gladly do whatever I could to make it enjoyable for everyone in my gaming community within that fact.

Odin
29-06-2010, 11:00
Yeah this pretty much explains all the fears I have with 8th.

Random, easy to do this and easy to do that makes for a very casual and easy to learn game, but the bar has been dropped and the plateau has been lowered.

Warhammer in 8th, whether you like it or not, will close the gap between the new and the old. It will be a lot easier to play, and a lot easier to master.

Kinda like SC2 vs. SC1.

They've been doing that since 3rd edition though, and it's never made the game any less tactical, just less clunky and with new challenges every edition. The only thing that seems to have been taken out of 8th is the reliance on being able to guess distances (which some people seem to mistake for "tactics").

To satisfy thpse people, I suggest GW releases a new game where you have to guess the length of various pieces of string.

Skalfgrimm
29-06-2010, 11:07
I can understand how some people are feeling uncomfortable and a bit unloved at the moment. The last two editions of WFB have made me feel the same way as the style of gaming I love and enjoy was just not supported by the editions or the community.

I can understand those who are in a kind of euphoria at this edition of WFB, it appears the return of something many of us have loved and missed. Bear in mind though the army books have yet to be rewritten
Could you please elaborate on this? In what way would you say something you missed returned? I am genuinly interested.


So far I am not happy with the 8th edition of WHFB. And no, I donīt think that GW removed all skill necessary to play the game, nor do I think that 7th was a work of genius. There are some things that seem off-putting to me, and Iīd very much like to know if and why these changes excite you- a change in perspective might just persuade me and change my mind.


The thing that annoys me the most is the change to terrain. 5 out of 6 woods will be haunted, cursed, dripping with blood and so on. That is so cheesy and off putting that this alone ruins the settingīs flavor to me.
There is fantasy and there is kitsch.
Admittedly, this is a quarrel with the flavor of the game, not the actual rule-mechanisms, so it is 100% subjective.

The removal of difficult terrain is another pet peeve of mine. I agree that change was needed, but I hoped for something like the "loose formation"-rule (see Lustria campaign book).

I also dislike the random charge distances (who is surprised?). I do not see the fun in not getting a charge off due to a failed roll. Ogres for example have a 27.78% chance to fail a charge at 12". How does this improve the enjoyment of the game?

I hate the rule that a model can no longer choose with which weapons to fight. It is such an arbitrary change, and one that seems to not serve any purpose. I takes away a choice for what I feel is no good reason.

I donīt like the fact that static combat resolution is taking the back seat even further, with the new support attacks and all. This is something the second half of 7thīs armybooks started, by making units more and more killy, something I hoped 8th would remedy. Sadly, it seems to embrace the trend and take it several notches up.

I donīt like steadfast. The intent behind it is great and much needed, but the execution is severly lacking.
Iīd have much prefered that a unit receives the difference in ranks as a modifier to itīs Ld for break tests.
This way 7 ranks of goblins would get +5 Ld when fighting 2 ranks of elves, but only +1 Ld when fighting 6 ranks of skaven.

And finally: I do not like the "everything kills models"-approach that 8th seems to have. Terrain kills models, magic (potentially) kills more models than ever before, more shooting with more kills, and bloodier combats with more attrition. It feels as if I deploy extras in an action movie, not units in a wargame. And not a good action flick either, but a horribly cheesy and boring Michael Bay orgy of explosions.
Ok, I exaggerate.

I like big games and I am all for 3k+ games. I like fielding bigger units, but Iīd like those additional models have some impact on the game beyond getting killed to show how badass one spell is, or how dangerous the woods in the old world are. I want warriors, not redshirts!


Those are my pet peeves of the top of my head. I hope you see that my worries focus on the (perceived) flavor of the game, and hopefully some of you can assuage my grievances.

Greetz, Skalfgrimm

Odin
29-06-2010, 12:26
Could you please elaborate on this? In what way would you say something you missed returned? I am genuinly interested.


So far I am not happy with the 8th edition of WHFB. And no, I donīt think that GW removed all skill necessary to play the game, nor do I think that 7th was a work of genius. There are some things that seem off-putting to me, and Iīd very much like to know if and why these changes excite you- a change in perspective might just persuade me and change my mind.


The thing that annoys me the most is the change to terrain. 5 out of 6 woods will be haunted, cursed, dripping with blood and so on. That is so cheesy and off putting that this alone ruins the settingīs flavor to me.
There is fantasy and there is kitsch.
Admittedly, this is a quarrel with the flavor of the game, not the actual rule-mechanisms, so it is 100% subjective.

The removal of difficult terrain is another pet peeve of mine. I agree that change was needed, but I hoped for something like the "loose formation"-rule (see Lustria campaign book).

I also dislike the random charge distances (who is surprised?). I do not see the fun in not getting a charge off due to a failed roll. Ogres for example have a 27.78% chance to fail a charge at 12". How does this improve the enjoyment of the game?

I hate the rule that a model can no longer choose with which weapons to fight. It is such an arbitrary change, and one that seems to not serve any purpose. I takes away a choice for what I feel is no good reason.

I donīt like the fact that static combat resolution is taking the back seat even further, with the new support attacks and all. This is something the second half of 7thīs armybooks started, by making units more and more killy, something I hoped 8th would remedy. Sadly, it seems to embrace the trend and take it several notches up.

I donīt like steadfast. The intent behind it is great and much needed, but the execution is severly lacking.
Iīd have much prefered that a unit receives the difference in ranks as a modifier to itīs Ld for break tests.
This way 7 ranks of goblins would get +5 Ld when fighting 2 ranks of elves, but only +1 Ld when fighting 6 ranks of skaven.

And finally: I do not like the "everything kills models"-approach that 8th seems to have. Terrain kills models, magic (potentially) kills more models than ever before, more shooting with more kills, and bloodier combats with more attrition. It feels as if I deploy extras in an action movie, not units in a wargame. And not a good action flick either, but a horribly cheesy and boring Michael Bay orgy of explosions.
Ok, I exaggerate.

I like big games and I am all for 3k+ games. I like fielding bigger units, but Iīd like those additional models have some impact on the game beyond getting killed to show how badass one spell is, or how dangerous the woods in the old world are. I want warriors, not redshirts!


Those are my pet peeves of the top of my head. I hope you see that my worries focus on the (perceived) flavor of the game, and hopefully some of you can assuage my grievances.

Greetz, Skalfgrimm

I'm generally pretty excited and positive about 8th edition, but I agree that it seems silly that almost every wood is full of flesh-eating trees or similar nonsense - one of the few changes I don't like (and won't implement). 1 in 6 might be alright, but any more than that belongs in the Chaos Wastes as far as I'm concerned. Not sure how I feel about the removal of difficult terrain. The current restrictions are too much - making terrain a no-go area for anyone other than skirmishers. But I think all they needed to do was say that it prevents marching but doesn't halve movement. It would have been a nuisance for ranked units, but would not take them out of the game completely like in 7th.

I like the idea of random charge distances, but I do worry that they might be too random. I think it would have been much better if you could re-roll the lowest dice, thus making the chances of a completely fluffed charge much lower. Still, I'll see how it works in practice.

I really can't understand why you would be opposed to reducing the impact of static CR. I didn't get into Warhammer to watch two infantry units fight, cause virtually no casualties, and then one unit flees because it had only 29 men in the unit, and the enemy unit had 30. Goblin spearmen may be rubbish, but they should (and will) be able to win combats by actually fighting (en masse) rather than just by standing around and outnumbering the enemy. I love the fact that static combat resolution will keep you in the fight, but won't win the combat. Nothing more absurd than seeing an elite unit fight a mob, cause plenty of casualties, taking none in return, and yet still flee. Now the mob will get to fight back, as they should. Sorry, I'm going on a bit here, but I think this will prove to be the single best change to WHFB ever.

I agree to some extent about the inability to choose weapons at the start of a combat, except that I don't think it serves no purpose - I think it serves at least two purposes - (a) to ensure that elite units with trademark weapons actually use those weapons rather than opting for a shield (hammerers for example should be using great hammers in combat, but currently never do), and (b) to prevent units from being too flexible - every unit should have a weakness. Having said that, I think the new rules on shields might have solved that anyway. I'm going to have to sit on the fence on this rule for now.

Eternus
29-06-2010, 12:40
Could you please elaborate on this? In what way would you say something you missed returned? I am genuinly interested.


So far I am not happy with the 8th edition of WHFB. And no, I donīt think that GW removed all skill necessary to play the game, nor do I think that 7th was a work of genius. There are some things that seem off-putting to me, and Iīd very much like to know if and why these changes excite you- a change in perspective might just persuade me and change my mind.


The thing that annoys me the most is the change to terrain. 5 out of 6 woods will be haunted, cursed, dripping with blood and so on. That is so cheesy and off putting that this alone ruins the settingīs flavor to me.
There is fantasy and there is kitsch.
Admittedly, this is a quarrel with the flavor of the game, not the actual rule-mechanisms, so it is 100% subjective.

The removal of difficult terrain is another pet peeve of mine. I agree that change was needed, but I hoped for something like the "loose formation"-rule (see Lustria campaign book).

I also dislike the random charge distances (who is surprised?). I do not see the fun in not getting a charge off due to a failed roll. Ogres for example have a 27.78% chance to fail a charge at 12". How does this improve the enjoyment of the game?

I hate the rule that a model can no longer choose with which weapons to fight. It is such an arbitrary change, and one that seems to not serve any purpose. I takes away a choice for what I feel is no good reason.

I donīt like the fact that static combat resolution is taking the back seat even further, with the new support attacks and all. This is something the second half of 7thīs armybooks started, by making units more and more killy, something I hoped 8th would remedy. Sadly, it seems to embrace the trend and take it several notches up.

I donīt like steadfast. The intent behind it is great and much needed, but the execution is severly lacking.
Iīd have much prefered that a unit receives the difference in ranks as a modifier to itīs Ld for break tests.
This way 7 ranks of goblins would get +5 Ld when fighting 2 ranks of elves, but only +1 Ld when fighting 6 ranks of skaven.

And finally: I do not like the "everything kills models"-approach that 8th seems to have. Terrain kills models, magic (potentially) kills more models than ever before, more shooting with more kills, and bloodier combats with more attrition. It feels as if I deploy extras in an action movie, not units in a wargame. And not a good action flick either, but a horribly cheesy and boring Michael Bay orgy of explosions.
Ok, I exaggerate.

I like big games and I am all for 3k+ games. I like fielding bigger units, but Iīd like those additional models have some impact on the game beyond getting killed to show how badass one spell is, or how dangerous the woods in the old world are. I want warriors, not redshirts!


Those are my pet peeves of the top of my head. I hope you see that my worries focus on the (perceived) flavor of the game, and hopefully some of you can assuage my grievances.

Greetz, Skalfgrimm

Ok dude, I'd love the opportunity to change your mind. First, the thing that went away and looks set to return, for me at least, is the story driven hobby many of us love, rather than being one step too far over the 'clinical gaming' line which is something I feel that 7th encouraged.

Second, regarding Terrain, if it really is 5/6 woods that will have some wierd in game effects, I do think this is overkill. I think we may house rule this if it turns out to be too much, and simply reduce the number of whacky terrain pieces on the field - we have the power!

I get what you said about the mass slaughter we look set to see in 8th, but to be honest I prefer the idea of this to the number of units that simply got removed after being caught fleeing from a combat - dozens of models removed without the chance to strike back. That made them seem more like red shirts to me than getting killed actually in combat.

I agree with your suggestion for an alternative to Steadfast, and many people have made such suggestions, and if it turns out to be way too good then we may house rule that as well, but I think that given how many more models will die, and faster, I think Steadfast may only have short lived effects in most combats - we'll have to see.

Magic is potentially more powerful, with more extra killy spells about, but it's also far more risky - the difference seems to be that a single spell may kill more than in 7th, but this is balanced somewhat by the likelyhood of getting a big spell off being reduced. Irresistible Force was nasty to be on the recieving end of in 7th, and one guy at my club gets them all the time - it drives us all nuts! - but at least it's dangerous for the caster to release all that power as well now.

I like the idea of Random Charges, though have yet to try it out, because it takes away the clinical certainty we had in 7th - now I feel more like a commander trying to direct my army, rather than a technician remotely controlling my army of robots - I like that I can't guarantee getting a charge in at anything over basic move value +2", it's exciting.

Static Combat Resolution is another area that became a bit too clinical in my eyes during 7th, and the change to the effects of this again adds to the uncertainty of battle. You can plan, you can prepare the best you can, but you cannot guarantee the outcome of a combat.

I guess this is the main point I like about what I have heard about 8th so far - I like very much the way that the impact of micromanaged clinical play has been reduced, and that there is less certainty in the game - you can plan, but not to the nth degree as was possible more in 7th Edition. Don't get me wrong, I like 7th, but for me, less certaintly is the one thing I feel adds more realism. It's a Fantasy Wargame, and much of it isn't 'realistic' in the true sense, but the uncertainty is realistic. Many posters who know more than I do about military history have indicated that no commander in history could guarantee how their troops would respond to enemy action, or how well they would carry out their orders. This is what we have to plan around in 8th, this is what it is to be a General. Now instead of flying high above the battlefield giving orders, it will feel more like we're on the battlefield.

When we play Fantasy, we are not playing against the Rulebook, we are playing against our opponent, therefore, the skill level of any game you play should be decided by your opponent, not by the rules. Generally, the better an opponent is, the more challenging they will be to defeat. The rules shouldn't affect this as you are both playing by the same rules. There are variables, like the fact that some armies naturally do better against others, dependant on what the army is best at, but it is the level of skill that decides how tough a battle is to win.

Sorry if I missed any of your points. I hope that when I get to read through the whole Rulebook, it turns out as good as I hope - I expect that some things will not be perfect, but I expect that I will certainly believe it to be a positive next step for the game.

Wakerofgods
29-06-2010, 12:41
It looks pretty good to me. I'm especially glad to see range guessing going...

People go on about how range guessing was all skill but it just came down to some people being good at it and others not and that wasnt any fun.

Badger[Fr]
29-06-2010, 13:07
Range guessing did require skill, but how was it relevant to a wargame? I mean, cheating at dice rolling is also all about skill, and yet it's not the kind of skills one should expect from a good Warhammer player. 8th Edition seems to put the emphasis on the bigger picture instead of favoring dirty tricks that are not directly relevant to a wargame, like 40k's 5th Edition did a few years ago. Which is, I think, a good thing.



And finally: I do not like the "everything kills models"-approach that 8th seems to have. Terrain kills models, magic (potentially) kills more models than ever before, more shooting with more kills, and bloodier combats with more attrition. It feels as if I deploy extras in an action movie, not units in a wargame. And not a good action flick either, but a horribly cheesy and boring Michael Bay orgy of explosions.
Ok, I exaggerate.

Well, I'd rather see my models be actually killed, be it by a warmachine, a spell, or other models, than loosing entire units to a couple of heavy hitters through combat resolution. Few things were as anti-climatic as watching a Deathstar unit charge an infantry block, kill the entire front rank, auto-break its foe, then run it down. Seriously, what is the point of painting tens of models if these can't even strike once?

Odin
29-06-2010, 13:09
Ok dude, I'd love the opportunity to change your mind. First, the thing that went away and looks set to return, for me at least, is the story driven hobby many of us love, rather than being one step too far over the 'clinical gaming' line which is something I feel that 7th encouraged.

Absolutely. It seems that so many players simply aren't interested in the setting and background, to the extent that they might as well be playing chess. I think tournaments have to a certain extent encouraged this. Nothing wrong with that kind of game, but really it ought to be the exception, not the rule.


I get what you said about the mass slaughter we look set to see in 8th, but to be honest I prefer the idea of this to the number of units that simply got removed after being caught fleeing from a combat - dozens of models removed without the chance to strike back. That made them seem more like red shirts to me than getting killed actually in combat.

Though in some ways combat is more predictable now. In 7th edition most units only had a handful of attacks, so the odds of hitting with all or missing with all were quite high. In 8th, almost every unit will be striking with more attacks, which actually reduces the odds of fluffing all your attacks. So combat is less determined by dice rolling and more determined by your ability to engineer combats in your favour.

ColShaw
29-06-2010, 13:15
;4774423']Range guessing did require skill, but how was it relevant to a wargame? I mean, cheating at dice rolling is also all about skill, and yet it's not the kind of skills one should expect from a good Warhammer player. 8th Edition seems to put the emphasis on the bigger picture instead of favoring dirty tricks that are not directly relevant to a wargame, like 40k's 5th Edition did a few years ago. Which is, I think, a good thing.

I hope you're not equating being good at guessing ranges to cheating.

Granted, lack of range-guessing does prevent deliberate over- or under-guessing. But TLOS also renders that obsolete, as you'd still be able to fire past the skirmish screen.

I'm going to miss my hard-won ability to guess 33" diagonally, but I suppose I'll get used to it, as I did in 40K 4th Ed.

I have some reservations about 8th Ed, mainly that I fear they may have wrecked the inter-army-book balance, but I'm trying to give it the benefit of the doubt.

chamelion 6
29-06-2010, 13:28
Ok dude, I'd love the opportunity to change your mind. First, the thing that went away and looks set to return, for me at least, is the story driven hobby many of us love, rather than being one step too far over the 'clinical gaming' line which is something I feel that 7th encouraged.

Second, regarding Terrain, if it really is 5/6 woods that will have some wierd in game effects, I do think this is overkill. I think we may house rule this if it turns out to be too much, and simply reduce the number of whacky terrain pieces on the field - we have the power!

I get what you said about the mass slaughter we look set to see in 8th, but to be honest I prefer the idea of this to the number of units that simply got removed after being caught fleeing from a combat - dozens of models removed without the chance to strike back. That made them seem more like red shirts to me than getting killed actually in combat.

I agree with your suggestion for an alternative to Steadfast, and many people have made such suggestions, and if it turns out to be way too good then we may house rule that as well, but I think that given how many more models will die, and faster, I think Steadfast may only have short lived effects in most combats - we'll have to see.

Magic is potentially more powerful, with more extra killy spells about, but it's also far more risky - the difference seems to be that a single spell may kill more than in 7th, but this is balanced somewhat by the likelyhood of getting a big spell off being reduced. Irresistible Force was nasty to be on the recieving end of in 7th, and one guy at my club gets them all the time - it drives us all nuts! - but at least it's dangerous for the caster to release all that power as well now.

I like the idea of Random Charges, though have yet to try it out, because it takes away the clinical certainty we had in 7th - now I feel more like a commander trying to direct my army, rather than a technician remotely controlling my army of robots - I like that I can't guarantee getting a charge in at anything over basic move value +2", it's exciting.

Static Combat Resolution is another area that became a bit too clinical in my eyes during 7th, and the change to the effects of this again adds to the uncertainty of battle. You can plan, you can prepare the best you can, but you cannot guarantee the outcome of a combat.

I guess this is the main point I like about what I have heard about 8th so far - I like very much the way that the impact of micromanaged clinical play has been reduced, and that there is less certainty in the game - you can plan, but not to the nth degree as was possible more in 7th Edition. Don't get me wrong, I like 7th, but for me, less certaintly is the one thing I feel adds more realism. It's a Fantasy Wargame, and much of it isn't 'realistic' in the true sense, but the uncertainty is realistic. Many posters who know more than I do about military history have indicated that no commander in history could guarantee how their troops would respond to enemy action, or how well they would carry out their orders. This is what we have to plan around in 8th, this is what it is to be a General. Now instead of flying high above the battlefield giving orders, it will feel more like we're on the battlefield.

When we play Fantasy, we are not playing against the Rulebook, we are playing against our opponent, therefore, the skill level of any game you play should be decided by your opponent, not by the rules. Generally, the better an opponent is, the more challenging they will be to defeat. The rules shouldn't affect this as you are both playing by the same rules. There are variables, like the fact that some armies naturally do better against others, dependant on what the army is best at, but it is the level of skill that decides how tough a battle is to win.

Sorry if I missed any of your points. I hope that when I get to read through the whole Rulebook, it turns out as good as I hope - I expect that some things will not be perfect, but I expect that I will certainly believe it to be a positive next step for the game.

Very eloquent and right on point.

Eternus
29-06-2010, 13:40
I hope you're not equating being good at guessing ranges to cheating.

Granted, lack of range-guessing does prevent deliberate over- or under-guessing. But TLOS also renders that obsolete, as you'd still be able to fire past the skirmish screen.

I'm going to miss my hard-won ability to guess 33" diagonally, but I suppose I'll get used to it, as I did in 40K 4th Ed.

I have some reservations about 8th Ed, mainly that I fear they may have wrecked the inter-army-book balance, but I'm trying to give it the benefit of the doubt.

If range guessing is gone, then at least we are rid of the endless debates about at exactly what point range guessing becomes deliberate overshooting. Good riddance.

@ Chamelion 6 - Cheers dude.

Akroma
29-06-2010, 15:32
range guessing (in combination of a good roll) is not that important. it MAY give the opponent a chance to get more spells or shooting off - but in the end, all what is important is the ini-value.
learn it from your troops and the units your opponent is fielding.
the rest is similar like before - stats and ratios if you compare WS, armour and so on.
as mentioned from others, more models in the fight means statistics should be more important, too.

i really cannot see the advantage here.


what i see is charging dwarfs with 15" compared to charging cavalry with 10" - if both fail the charge they will move 6" for the stumpies (which is still their march-move!) and 1" in the other case. that won't happen so often... but still... :wtf:
but who cares? because if the ud-cav with bad ini manages to charge many of them get cut down by blackorcs with choppas before they can do a thing.
of course - you can field your cav in 3 rows now so enough can attack... thats the spirit!


by the way - i really like flavour and background - thats why i am a fan of WHFrpg and the great corresponding books; but where is the flair in killing trees?

but well, at least i am not the only one who is sceptical...

Odin
29-06-2010, 17:57
what i see is charging dwarfs with 15" compared to charging cavalry with 10" - if both fail the charge they will move 6" for the stumpies (which is still their march-move!) and 1" in the other case. that won't happen so often... but still... :wtf:

Either you've read the rules wrong, or I have. Or I've misunderstood your post. Why would cavalry only move 1" for a failed charge while Dwarfs move 6"?

yabbadabba
29-06-2010, 18:14
Either you've read the rules wrong, or I have. Or I've misunderstood your post. Why would cavalry only move 1" for a failed charge while Dwarfs move 6"? Dramatic effect.

Akroma
29-06-2010, 18:27
if you fail a charge you don't move with the unit-stats, you take the highest roll... 3+6+6 for dwarfs, 8+1+1 for a cavalry was the example.
as i said - this will not happen too often, but it is possible and just ridiculous - no matter what yabba thinks of it

logan054
29-06-2010, 18:39
Well that would require the cav player to roll 3 1's as they roll 3 dice for a charge and discard the lowest, so yes they could move one but chances are they wont, on the flip side of extremes a Dwarf unit could charge 7" and a Cav unit 19/20" (depending on M value).

At the end of the day you entitled to like and hate whatever you want, if you dont like the direction 8th is taking that much then i suggest you go and write a letter to the design team and express all the problems you see with 8th, perhaps you could even include a alternate 150 page rules section for them to look at and so they can see just how warhammer should be done.

If not you may as well be doing this

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll219/Logoan054/th_crying-baby-272x300.jpg

At the end of the day warhammer changes, sometimes not into things we like so i think you need to take a step back, dry your eyes and decide you play warhammer? Is it because you enjoy winning? Meeting new people? Playing with Toy Soldiers? I cant see how any of these rules are going to effect any of these.

yabbadabba
29-06-2010, 18:41
1 in 7776 (thanks Logan) is what I think of it and therefore in WFB terms almost a statistical impossibility. So for an example, a joke illustrates life, and it was for dramatic effect.

chamelion 6
29-06-2010, 18:41
if you fail a charge you don't move with the unit-stats, you take the highest roll... 3+6+6 for dwarfs, 8+1+1 for a cavalry was the example.
as i said - this will not happen too often, but it is possible and just ridiculous - no matter what yabba thinks of it

If your looking for a "real life" counter you have to consider what might've caused the cav to fail their charge. False start? Half the unit began the charge to another unit's call then stopped and hesitated as the actual call blew and the rest started to charge then hesitated because the other half turned instead of charging. The confusion causing the unit to move forward a few yards and halt in uncertainty, their leader jumping up and down in his saddle spewing profanity across the field of honor.

That was an all to often occurance on real battle fields. In this case the Dwarves just happened to step it up and caught a good wind gaining a little more ground than usual... Probably because of the good laugh they had at the horseys falling over themselves...

Like you said, unlikely. But well with in the realm of possibility.

ColShaw
29-06-2010, 18:45
Of course, ATTEMPTING a 15" charge with Dwarfs would be optimistic, to say the least. I think something often forgotten in the "Dwarfs can charge 15" now!" arguments is that they can attempt it, yes, but they'll only succeed 1 out of 36 times they try it. The enemy's gotta be within 10" for it to be more than halfway likely they'll make it.

Badger[Fr]
29-06-2010, 18:46
I hope you're not equating being good at guessing ranges to cheating.
I didn't, of course. My point was that, skill by itself does not necessarily make a rule relevant to a wargame.


I have some reservations about 8th Ed, mainly that I fear they may have wrecked the inter-army-book balance,
To be fair, there wasn't much left to wreck in the first place.

Elannion
29-06-2010, 19:51
Just thought i would chime in with my two cents so to speak (i haven't read all the thread but then it is long...). Mostly i want to say that this thread has a fair amount of high feelings some of which are justified and others not.

Alot of people are ranting about how bad 7th edition was, i haven't played it personally myself but i have been lurking about during its time and have been playing since 5th. generally 6th edition (which has basically the same ruleset as 7th) and 7th edition were very well received and thought to be generally well balanced. As many people have said its only recently when army books have been getting OTT that people have had any real big complaints about them.

There is also a lot of hysteria about this new edition putting an end to unbalanced armies and competitive play and rules lawyering. Put shortly it won't, people will always twist the rules and there will always be those who exploit army lists and loop holes, there will still be imbalances there they will just be different. The key to making the game fun is really in the hands of the players as many have said, not in the rule books and not in games workshop.

I think we all need to wait a bit before we pass judgement on the new rules, i don't think its as dire as a lot of people suggest. There are some big changes but it is still the same game really. Someone earlier posted about how they weren't entirely sure about it but it was nice to have a breath of fresh air to the game, which i think is spot on, we have had the same ruleset for a very long time now really.

Ok that was my main point really, what follows is a small rant about the rules changes which you may ignore if you wish.

Measuring ranges seems rather simplistic to me and i don't see what it improves, people will still argue about whether things are in range or not especially so now that charging is random. Though i don't think i have ever had much problem with people arguing about ranges, unless you play with someone who is uber competitive its not really an issue and even then you can simply state at the start that if its not clearly in range its doesn't count (or worst comes to worst roll on it). It does seem to me to eliminate a fair amount of tactics from the game and yes i do mean tactics not rules lawyering or range arguing.

I don't also see the need to fight in two ranks it seems a bit simplistic and a measure put forward perhaps to try and make it more fun by more killing happening... which isn't really what infantry are meant to be about.

I am uncertain about the random charge rules, in one way i think its quite good that there is no longer a set range, it gets quite dull if you know that you have to be a set distance from everything. However on the other hand as many posters have said before leaving everything down to the luck of the dice is pretty boring too and eliminates thought and tactics, who really wants to win because they got lucky on a dice roll..

Having said this i do like the new magic rules, the problem i always thought the magic system had was not in the spells and the casting but in the dispel system which meant you had to go all or nothing and always had to have a scroll caddy. The only downside to the system is that it limits the amount of wizards you can have which i think is a bit rubbish, though perhaps there is more to the rules than we know yet.

yabbadabba
29-06-2010, 20:06
Pre-measuring is used in Epic and some other historical wargames, all of which are tatically superior to WFB. So introducing it to WFB doesn't necessarily lessen WFB tactical quality.

Skalfgrimm
29-06-2010, 20:17
Ok dude, I'd love the opportunity to change your mind. First, the thing that went away and looks set to return, for me at least, is the story driven hobby many of us love, rather than being one step too far over the 'clinical gaming' line which is something I feel that 7th encouraged.
I know that this is your position, Iīve read your opening post. What Iīd like to know is which changes in particular inform this opinion.

And why do you feel 7th encouraged "clinical gaming"?


Second, regarding Terrain, if it really is 5/6 woods that will have some wierd in game effects, I do think this is overkill. I think we may house rule this if it turns out to be too much, and simply reduce the number of whacky terrain pieces on the field - we have the power!
It is 5/6. And I agree with houseruling it, but IMO it should have been a fun suggestion in one of the appendices ofthe book, not part of the main rules.


I get what you said about the mass slaughter we look set to see in 8th, but to be honest I prefer the idea of this to the number of units that simply got removed after being caught fleeing from a combat - dozens of models removed without the chance to strike back. That made them seem more like red shirts to me than getting killed actually in combat.
I definitely agree that it is bad design to remove entire units that have been caught from the game.
But in 8th this still is the case. Units that are caught fleeing will be removed from the game entirely, just as before.
So we will have more casualities from shooting, magic, close combat and even terrain, plus the usual units that get entirely wiped out when caught.


I agree with your suggestion for an alternative to Steadfast, and many people have made such suggestions, and if it turns out to be way too good then we may house rule that as well, but I think that given how many more models will die, and faster, I think Steadfast may only have short lived effects in most combats - we'll have to see.
I does not matter to me wether or not steadfast is too good, I care about elegant rule design. Steadfast does not scale, having one more rank or five more ranks, it is the same. The extreme is that one model may make the difference (19 vs 20 models, 3 vs 4 ranks).
This does not portray the tides of battle with units pushing against one another to bring their mass to bear as elegantly as it could have.
Iīd call this a missed opportunity.


Magic is potentially more powerful, with more extra killy spells about, but it's also far more risky - the difference seems to be that a single spell may kill more than in 7th, but this is balanced somewhat by the likelyhood of getting a big spell off being reduced. Irresistible Force was nasty to be on the recieving end of in 7th, and one guy at my club gets them all the time - it drives us all nuts! - but at least it's dangerous for the caster to release all that power as well now.
I entirely agree, magic was not handled well in 7th- I hope 8th will fare better, but I honestly d not know yet-


I like the idea of Random Charges, though have yet to try it out, because it takes away the clinical certainty we had in 7th - now I feel more like a commander trying to direct my army, rather than a technician remotely controlling my army of robots - I like that I can't guarantee getting a charge in at anything over basic move value +2", it's exciting.
I do not disagree here, what irks me most is, again, the execution. M+2D6 means that the actual movement value does not matter nearly as much as before when charging.



Static Combat Resolution is another area that became a bit too clinical in my eyes during 7th, and the change to the effects of this again adds to the uncertainty of battle. You can plan, you can prepare the best you can, but you cannot guarantee the outcome of a combat.
Yes, there should be a random element, but that is not the point.

Static combat resolution represented the mass of a unit, the ability to "push" the enemy units by sheer size. It was a mechanism that made ranked unit more durable in close combat, since it reduces the negative modifier on the break test by up to 3. It also served as offensive mechanism, winning combats and begatively impacting enemy break tests.

With more active combat resolution the relative impact of static combat resolution is drastically lowered, a development that the rules of the 8th now seek to counter with the steadfast rule, giving ranks an additional defensice mechanism.
The result are infantry units that are perfectly able to hold their ground, but have no significant means to employ their size and numbers offensively.



I guess this is the main point I like about what I have heard about 8th so far - I like very much the way that the impact of micromanaged clinical play has been reduced, and that there is less certainty in the game - you can plan, but not to the nth degree as was possible more in 7th Edition. Don't get me wrong, I like 7th, but for me, less certaintly is the one thing I feel adds more realism. It's a Fantasy Wargame, and much of it isn't 'realistic' in the true sense, but the uncertainty is realistic. Many posters who know more than I do about military history have indicated that no commander in history could guarantee how their troops would respond to enemy action, or how well they would carry out their orders. This is what we have to plan around in 8th, this is what it is to be a General. Now instead of flying high above the battlefield giving orders, it will feel more like we're on the battlefield.
I know this has been a point of contention with other posters, but it is not something I want to dwell on, since this is not one of my criticisms.

Although, having played 8th today I have to say: It is not all that different to 7th. Having the charges be random did not change the perspective of the game one bit. If you look for emersive gameplay, 8th does not fare much better than 7th.
My (admittedly way too early and definitly not final) verdict so far: I was annoyed by the things I already mentioned, but overall it was alright. I massacred WoC with my dwarfs, and really, it was not satisfying. I donīt blame 8th mind you! It would have been just as bland in 7th.

Something I did enjoy: The free reform rule of musicians, as well as reforms after close combat.


Thanks for taking your time to respond, I am enjyoing this discussion a lot!

Greetz, Skalfgrimm

UberBeast
29-06-2010, 20:36
I does not matter to me wether or not steadfast is too good, I care about elegant rule design. Steadfast does not scale, having one more rank or five more ranks, it is the same. The extreme is that one model may make the difference (19 vs 20 models, 3 vs 4 ranks).
This does not portray the tides of battle with units pushing against one another to bring their mass to bear as elegantly as it could have.
Iīd call this a missed opportunity.


Agreed. This really could have been a ratio bonus as used in hundreds of other games where rough percentages in outnumbering give an incremental bonus. Removing the whole unit strength thing in favor of this clunky rule feels makeshift and overly simplistic.

EightyDeuce
29-06-2010, 21:00
I do not have any experience with 8th edition and have, in fact, not been able to play Warhammer for nigh on seven years now. That being said I am very excited by what I am reading about 8th edition. To me it sounds like a move to make Warhammer into what I always viewed it to be (in my humble opinion). I always viewed Warhammer as chess with variables. Chess is static and requires a good memory to be successful at. The best chess players see many possibilites for future moves because they have played a lot and studied many games that others have played. But a queen still takes a pawn if she does so on her players turn. The thing that Warhammer changed up was that said queen could trip and quickly be stabbed to death by a lowly goblin. For me it added a bit of chaos that needed to be accounted for in any tactical plan.

PS: There is an old saying in the Army. It goes "No plan survives first contact with the enemy". I think it is good that players well thought out master plans now will be shaken up a bit and they will have to think on the fly and make snap decisions.

Elannion
29-06-2010, 21:18
Pre-measuring is used in Epic and some other historical wargames, all of which are tatically superior to WFB. So introducing it to WFB doesn't necessarily lessen WFB tactical quality.

That would only ring true if the games were entirely the same but for that rule, there are many ways that make those games tactically sound other than range measuring. Don't get me wrong its not a massive issue but i don't think you can argue that it doesn't take a dimension out of the game and it certainly is a move towards the simplistic and unrealistic.

chamelion 6
29-06-2010, 21:42
That would only ring true if the games were entirely the same but for that rule, there are many ways that make those games tactically sound other than range measuring. Don't get me wrong its not a massive issue but i don't think you can argue that it doesn't take a dimension out of the game and it certainly is a move towards the simplistic and unrealistic.

How does premeasuring make a game played on a board using rulers unrealistic. I honestly don't see that.

yabbadabba
29-06-2010, 21:46
That would only ring true if the games were entirely the same but for that rule, there are many ways that make those games tactically sound other than range measuring. Don't get me wrong its not a massive issue but i don't think you can argue that it doesn't take a dimension out of the game and it certainly is a move towards the simplistic and unrealistic. I think you can, because I can counter argue that most can make a reasonably accurate guess at distances, through experience or even just by knowing how long your hand is.
Realism has little place in a GW game, but if you must, there are plenty of recorded cases of things like ranging shots from an expert archer or engineer and war machine. Battles were often fought in areas which were either well known, or had been thoroughly scouted. So allowing pre-measuring can also be justified through "realism" with the dice taking over the small variations of skill and experience.
As to simplification, again without having played several games it is an assumption. If you have played a game with pre measuring you will know that there is as much skill involved, but it is a different skill set. Epic is still based on use of dice to make decisions so the basics are still the same. There are other options - Ld tests for certain actions, with penalties for failures. Command choices for various heroes to allow units to actually achieve their battlefield role.
Your fear is that by removing the secrecy of battlefield distance it will make the game too simplisitic. Yet there is no evidence at yet to support that so I say allay your fears, and just wait until you get the chance to give the rules the full run.

Odin
29-06-2010, 22:54
I know that this is your position, Iīve read your opening post. What Iīd like to know is which changes in particular inform this opinion.


I would guess it is the couple of hundred pages dedicated to that side of things in the rulebook, far more than the existing rulebook. And the Jervis Johnson article talking about how they are trying to emphasis this side of the game, rather than the competitive side.

Skalfgrimm
30-06-2010, 00:05
I would guess it is the couple of hundred pages dedicated to that side of things in the rulebook, far more than the existing rulebook. And the Jervis Johnson article talking about how they are trying to emphasis this side of the game, rather than the competitive side.
But how do you see this intent manifest itself in the rules?
Which rule changes dou you think really manage to change the game in this way and how do they do that?

These are the questions I am interested in.

Greetz, Skalfgrimm

Allonairre
30-06-2010, 06:53
I am a little discouraged that among 8th editions most ardent supporters many are saying that they will house rule bits and pieces of the game.

I don't think house rules should be the norm, they have their place but it is often a cause for disagreement if a houserule leaves you on the receiving end of a crappy game.

I think that it is fair to say that almost anyone here can come up with simple workable solutions to most if not all of the issues raised here,

Random Charges- 2d6 take highest (4" to 12" charges from infantry), 3d6 take highest and a half next highest (rounding down) (8" to 18" charges from cavalry) This keeps the 24" gap as a meaningful gap, doesn't reduce normal moving down to virtually irrelevant and is a bit more reliable than just a straight dice roll.

Terrain- a bit subjective but there have been good suggestions (no marching comes to mind), I don't think that randomly classifying each terrain piece as you move through it is good at all, in spite of the "feel" that it may introduce. Yabba-Dabba's scouts can be used here as well to tell generals where it is safe to move.

Steadfast- I like this rule but can see how it will be exploited a bit with the 19 vs 20 situation. My experience with other game systems is a bit limited to propose anything here and many of the suggestions given just seem to be a double reward for additional ranks, once when working out the winner of a combat and again when calculating the break test. You could of course decide the winner on kills and then the break test is done purely on numbers, You kill less but have more ranks = stubborn, then -1 leadership per rank less than the enemy you have. This means that in most cases you will get a reasonably even break test. It would be broken by an amazing character in a horde unit though as well as horde units almost never winning without support. And still could be broken by small elite units who carve up the enemy and therefore never lose combats.

Magic- Genuinely improved game mechanic, but it doesn't seem to scale well and I don't think that the Core Magic Lores needed to become that amazing.

My point with all that stuff is that I hope that Games-Workshop has not rushed into this edition and put real thought into the rules that we deserve as their loyal patrons. I am however, really nervous that they have seen a sales dive and tried to address it with a bandaid that isn't thoroughly thought through.

Still really pumped about the new rules though, can't wait to get them in ... however many days it is.

Skalfgrimm, I don't think you will get a satisfactory answer until people have actually read through the rules cover to cover. There does seem to be a buzz about this edition however that I have not felt before.

yabbadabba
30-06-2010, 07:04
@ Allonairre. I advocate house rules as a norm for regular players to enjoy their game the way they think it should happen. Think about, how many times on here do you hear of events that still ban special characters?

So while I am a houserule supporter, house rules are kind of pointless if you haven't had a comprehensive playtest of the rules. Thats not 1,2 or half a dozen games. Its probably several months of varied gaming. In this math hammer just doesn't work as anything other than a very simplistic, rough guide.

So while there are changes which might cause concern, I'd say wait and play first as there is no way you can get the holisitic synergy of the game without playing more than a couple of games.

Eternus
30-06-2010, 08:25
But how do you see this intent manifest itself in the rules?
Which rule changes dou you think really manage to change the game in this way and how do they do that?

These are the questions I am interested in.

Greetz, Skalfgrimm

I think that it's less the changes to the rules and more the promotion of the alternative ways to apply the rules. What I mean is, if people play 7th and they always play a pitched battle and they always play against the same opponents, it is a bit like playing chess because you can get used to the same set up and same units over and over again - if you stick to the same battles and armies, the game loses some of it's variety, and allows people to plan as you might during a game of chess.

In the new book we are presented with several possible battles as the standard, just like in 40K, and this means that you are not playing the same battle over and over again - objective based battles will certainly change this. For me this indicates a move from allowing copious amounts of pre planning and injects more drama and excitement resulting from the increased unpredictability of each situation. I may know my opponents army and mine inside out, but playing a different scenario or changing the set up rules every time will make a huge difference to how the armies play and how you must approach the battle in a way that is both challenging and lends itself to a story driven experience.

I do think that some rules changes have been made which push towards armies more in line with army background, like the minimum Core units which may force some players to alter their standard army selection (though 25% Core isn't much really anyway, my army is often more than this) and also the various benefits to infantry which we have already talked about - whether or not these changes are the right ones or not I don't know - but again for me this is a move towards the types of battles that are described in the background.

All the various rules and ways of playing that move a little away from the standard pitched battle (with armies chosen specifically to deal with that kind of battle and are applied in the same way every time they fight), and a little more towards story driven battles with varying set up and objectives, are the rules that bring back some of the less 'clinical' and more story driven gaming I was talking about, because they reduce a players ability to plan to the same degree as in 7th - you must now plan for the unextepected, rather than knowing exactly what to expect from movement and specially selected units. Armies will have to be more flexible, where as in 7th they could be tailored to fight a battle in a very specific way, and now a General cannot rely 100% on his or her units to exactly as they plan. I don't think this reduces the tactical aspect of the game at all, I think it enhances it because it forces you to think outside the box and plan flexibly, just like a real general would.

I hope this answers you question initially - are there any points you would like me to expand on, or points I have neglected?

If I could very quickly address Elannions statement:

"I don't also see the need to fight in two ranks it seems a bit simplistic and a measure put forward perhaps to try and make it more fun by more killing happening... which isn't really what infantry are meant to be about."

I love units being able to fight in two ranks, because it means that far fewer combats will be like 7th Combats where one side wipes out the other's front rank on the charge, so most combats only involve one player getting to rolling any dice. This is very frustrating.

Odin
30-06-2010, 10:37
@ Allonairre. I advocate house rules as a norm for regular players to enjoy their game the way they think it should happen. Think about, how many times on here do you hear of events that still ban special characters?

So while I am a houserule supporter, house rules are kind of pointless if you haven't had a comprehensive playtest of the rules. Thats not 1,2 or half a dozen games. Its probably several months of varied gaming. In this math hammer just doesn't work as anything other than a very simplistic, rough guide.

So while there are changes which might cause concern, I'd say wait and play first as there is no way you can get the holisitic synergy of the game without playing more than a couple of games.

Absolutely, I've used house rules since I started playing 20 years ago - GW are actively encouraging it. After all, there is no way that the rules in the BRB will be exactly what every one of the hundreds(?) of thousands of players want. They provide the canvas, what you do with it is up to you, and that's what they are trying to remind us with 8th edition.

Denny_Crane
30-06-2010, 10:42
People say the new edition doesn't feel like Warhammer, i say the opposite. This is the closest thing a sane person is going to get to the Warhammer World.

Necromancer2
30-06-2010, 12:01
the only thing that really sticks out to me is it is "Listhammer" .

Grimsteel
30-06-2010, 13:20
This is exactly the kind of thing I am looking forward to - with what I hope will be fewer things perceived as 'game breaking' in the game, like VC armies with the worlds supply of power dice and terrible combos of DE magic items just as a couple of examples, there will almost always be hope.

No game should ever begin with one player looking across the table and knowing for certain they don't stand a chance and not a single die has yet been rolled in anger. We should always feel as though we have something to play for, at least for the first few turns or so. A game that is decided in the first turn, or even during deployment is never going to be very enjoyable, it's going to be boring, and unfortunately this is the extreme end of what 7th has become.

The best games are ones that are hard fought and could go either way until the last turn or two. Now Magic is less clinical, Characters have less decisive impact, and no unit or model is virtually invulnerable due to being able to kill everything in base to base contact before they strike back every time. The field has been somewhat levelled I think. Should be a far more exciting experience. The game will be less orchestrated, and Generals will have to think on their feet more because they cannot predict as accurately what will happen as they could in 7th.

Some of the changes were excellent some not so at all. Cavalry took a painful nerf and any army with the ability to produce more power dice will absolutely wreck the ones who cannot with this new magic. Fighting the lizards and they got another dice for every cast and I know the dark elves can summon more dice. The magic phase, for an army that cannot generate more dice, will be very unbalanced as before. It simply switched which armies will prevail in magic.
The magic is so ugly now that they need to ensure that all armies have the ability to produce additional dice.
Hvy cavalry will not be flanking or doing much of anything in this new edition. At least not expensive cavalry.
These new rules benefit the horde lists and any army that can bring massive numbers of effective, yet cheap troops. Any army that can generate extra power dice will also dominate with this absurd new magic.
Bringing those really dynamic chaos knights, expensive, but once worth it has no place with these new rules. Bring in the cheap boring swarms of zerglings and you will win in 8th. Elite troops will be too easily taken out with no saving throw magic and stubborn swarms of meat.
Gone are the true warrior elites, replaced by massive blocks of stubborn swarms of rats and gobbies. No need for a charge in 8th, you may not strike first anyway. Just outnumber to win. 8th really is just a race to see who can field the largest number of cheap troops. With these changes they really need to do more than just errata. I say do new books for every army all at once.
As it stands 8th simply switches the inbalance, it doesnt eliminate it.

Eternus
30-06-2010, 13:30
Some of the changes were excellent some not so at all. Cavalry took a painful nerf and any army with the ability to produce more power dice will absolutely wreck the ones who cannot with this new magic. Fighting the lizards and they got another dice for every cast and I know the dark elves can summon more dice. The magic phase, for an army that cannot generate more dice, will be very unbalanced as before. It simply switched which armies will prevail in magic.
The magic is so ugly now that they need to ensure that all armies have the ability to produce additional dice.
Hvy cavalry will not be flanking or doing much of anything in this new edition. At least not expensive cavalry.
These new rules benefit the horde lists and any army that can bring massive numbers of effective, yet cheap troops. Any army that can generate extra power dice will also dominate with this absurd new magic.
Bringing those really dynamic chaos knights, expensive, but once worth it has no place with these new rules. Bring in the cheap boring swarms of zerglings and you will win in 8th. Elite troops will be too easily taken out with no saving throw magic and stubborn swarms of meat.
Gone are the true warrior elites, replaced by massive blocks of stubborn swarms of rats and gobbies. No need for a charge in 8th, you may not strike first anyway. Just outnumber to win. 8th really is just a race to see who can field the largest number of cheap troops. With these changes they really need to do more than just errata. I say do new books for every army all at once.
As it stands 8th simply switches the inbalance, it doesnt eliminate it.

This would indeed be bad for the game. I do hope, in the most positive way possible, that you are wrong in you predictions my friend - only the next couple of months or so will tell.

Odin
30-06-2010, 13:38
the only thing that really sticks out to me is it is "Listhammer" .

What, more than 7th?

Seems to me there will be a lot more balance between the unit types, which ought to give every army a decent chance, even if it's not tooled up to win at all costs (remains to be seen of course...).

WarmbloodedLizard
30-06-2010, 13:45
What, more than 7th?

Seems to me there will be a lot more balance between the unit types, which ought to give every army a decent chance, even if it's not tooled up to win at all costs (remains to be seen of course...).

there was a pretty good balance between unit types in 7th, it was only armybooks that were a problem. now, infantry is simply superior to cav, monsters and chariots.

and listhammering: you can't play MSU any more (except shooting), there's a lot less diversity. if you don't go for at least halfway big units, you will lose.

Brother Loki
30-06-2010, 14:18
To those who feel random charge ranges negate realism and tactics I will say this. Warhammer has often been looked down on by historical gamers to some extent, and when I've queried why, the lack of fog of war and a system for command is one of the main reasons. In Warhammer, your troops will pretty much do exactly what you want them to. In many historical simulation systems this isn't the case. For example you may have to pass command tests in order to activate units and so on, to represent orders being lost or misinterpreted in the confusion of battle. It seems to me that random charges are a step towards modelling this kind of thing.

I haven't seen the 8th edition book yet (or the 7th for that matter - my WFB went from 2nd to 3rd to 6th), but from the way people are describing it it sound much more like what I'm looking for in a game. It sounds like the narrative-gaming/scenario/siege/campaign/funky stuff section is as big or bigger than the actual rules section and that's as it should be. To me the rule mechanics are the least important part of the game.

Warhammer has always been pitched as primarily intended for narrative gaming, and most of the designers have always approached it from the 'roleplaying with armies viewpoint', which is generally reflected in things like battle reports. In the studio, it appears to be pretty much unheard of to play a simple pitched battle with no narrative scenario behind it. I think it's very sad that such stale battles seem have become the norm. I suspect that the 7th ed rulebook has encouraged this by not including multiple scenarios (or so I understand). I believe Alessio was the lead designer on 7th, and he's pretty much the only studio person who's ever been into the tournament scene.

While I appreciate that there are a number of players for whom fluff or narrative gaming is not what they're about, and are much more interested in list optimisation and competitiveness, but those people have never been the main intended audience for Warhammer. I think the designers approach has pretty much always (with the possible exception of Alessio) been that the game is there to explore the Warhammer World in miniatures, not simply that the Warhammer World is an optional backdrop to the game. It's a very subtle, but I feel very important, distinction which I think completely informs the design process. As I say, I haven't seen the rulebook itself yet, but from what I've seen online it positively drips with the essence of the Warhammer world, as do things like the Imperial Engineers templates etc.

Skalfgrimm
30-06-2010, 14:46
@ Eternus: Thanks for the in-depth reply, I appreciate it. I think I see now where you are coming and arguing from.
And I would wholeheartedly agree with you. The Warhammer you describe sounds terrific.

But from reading the rulebook and playing the game, I have to say: The execution is severly lacking. Many things are there that have the potential to be great, but fall short of my expectations: steadfast, random charges, scenarios and especially terrain rules.

My position is not "I am opposed to the intent of the changes of 8th", it is "I am severly disappointed with the execution of these changes".

And one plea to all: Please stop this dichotomy of "narrative/fluff/casual gamers like 8th" and "competetive/WAAC/Chess gamers do not like 8th".
There is absoluetly no shortage of people who cannot be classified as belonging to either of these two categories, and this dichotomy only hinders any open disusion and analysis of 8th edition rules, design intents, and peopleīs opinions regarding them.

Greetz, Skalfgrimm

Brother Loki
30-06-2010, 15:00
"narrative/fluff/casual gamers like 8th" and "competetive/WAAC/Chess gamers do not like 8th".

Just to clarify I'm not saying this at all. What I'm saying is closer to:

"8th edition seems to be focused on narrative and background-driven gaming as the default assumption, with competition and tournaments as the exception, rather than the other way around. Many of the described rule changes seem to be intended to support this focus."

That focus has always been there, but I suspect it is more explicitly stated now. GW games are not primarily written with competitive play (as in gameplay, not players) in mind and never have been.

GW was at its most successful in terms of popularity and growth in the late 80's and early '90s, when there was a much more 'hobby-driven' approach to the products. Crucially, there was no such thing as a 'tournament scene' for GW games until around 1995 or so. I think that many of the recent developments (Apocalypse, Planetstrike, 8th edition warhammer) are an attempt to hearken back to that era and recapture some of the magic.

UberBeast
30-06-2010, 15:38
And one plea to all: Please stop this dichotomy of "narrative/fluff/casual gamers like 8th" and "competetive/WAAC/Chess gamers do not like 8th".
There is absoluetly no shortage of people who cannot be classified as belonging to either of these two categories, and this dichotomy only hinders any open disusion and analysis of 8th edition rules, design intents, and peopleīs opinions regarding them.


Yes, it is insulting and foolishly trivializes people's arguments on both sides of the debate.

I am amazed that there are people who claim that 7th edition was boring fluff-wise because there weren't any scenarios and are now happy that GW has come out with some.

Aside from creating your own scenarios, there were scenarios including seige and skirmish rules in the 6th edition book, as well as the general's compendium all of which were perfectly applicable to 7th edition. I just finished playing a 7th edition campaign based off of their GC book, and we were using the Mighty Empire tiles which were released in 7th edition for our map.

Heck, when I first got into warhammer, I didn't play anything but scenarios because nobody I knew had perfectly even points and we wanted to play with all our models. All of our games were loosely narrated to create a balanced game with a story behind it.

"Yay, now we can play scenerios because they are in the current rulebook again!" :D

Brother Loki
30-06-2010, 15:47
Although it shouldn't be the case in a hobby primarily about imagination - I think it is an important step precisely because a lot of players DO need something to be in the rulebook before thay'll consider it. The popularity of Apocalypse demonstrates this. It was perfectly possible to do large 40k narrative battles before, but lots of people wouldn't try it. Apocalypse came along and told them it was OK to experiment outside the core rules, and it's been very successful. Removing scenarios form the core rules in 7th sent the wrong signal, and its good to have them back.

I agree that the Generals compendium was brilliant, in fact I'd say its far and away the best Warhammer book of the last decade or more. Hopefully 8th is a move back to that kind of product.

Odin
30-06-2010, 15:55
there was a pretty good balance between unit types in 7th, it was only armybooks that were a problem. now, infantry is simply superior to cav, monsters and chariots.

A bit early to say, I don't think that's going to be true at all. Infantry units will be getting bigger on average, the points size of battles will go up, and you'll be able to afford those units of 12 Knights, which will have plenty of high strength attacks and can break the enemy's ranks. Monsters getting D6 impact hits might actually make my Shaggoth worth taking for the first time ever.



and listhammering: you can't play MSU any more (except shooting), there's a lot less diversity. if you don't go for at least halfway big units, you will lose.

Unit sizes are pretty predictable in 7th edition already. At least 8th finally encourages people to take more than the minimum (which should be just that - the minimum, not the norm). So 8th increases unit sizes, but could not possibly make them more predictable than they already are.

I still think there will be a role for small infantry units though, protecting the flanks of the larger ones for example.

Skalfgrimm
30-06-2010, 16:13
The Generalīs Compendium is by far my favorite GW publication I own.

I would be overjoyed if 8th heralded a return to his level of excellence, and I hope it does not fail as miserably as the 40k supplements apocalypse, cities of death, planetstrike and combat missions, which felt lifeless and absolutely unimaginative to me.
But so far 8th seems of bad qualitiy in terms of rule design. And a weak foundation in core rules does not make me optimistic for future add-ons.

@ Odin: 12 Knights are not scary in 8th. Kill three and they do not break ranks any more.
Cavalry also do not get supporting attacks, so they wonīt fight with any more attacks than before. It is fair to say that cavalry lost a lot of itīs importance, wether or not it lost too much up for debate though.

chamelion 6
30-06-2010, 16:21
Yes, it is insulting and foolishly trivializes people's arguments on both sides of the debate.

I am amazed that there are people who claim that 7th edition was boring fluff-wise because there weren't any scenarios and are now happy that GW has come out with some.

Aside from creating your own scenarios, there were scenarios including seige and skirmish rules in the 6th edition book, as well as the general's compendium all of which were perfectly applicable to 7th edition. I just finished playing a 7th edition campaign based off of their GC book, and we were using the Mighty Empire tiles which were released in 7th edition for our map.

Heck, when I first got into warhammer, I didn't play anything but scenarios because nobody I knew had perfectly even points and we wanted to play with all our models. All of our games were loosely narrated to create a balanced game with a story behind it.

"Yay, now we can play scenerios because they are in the current rulebook again!" :D

I don't see the "fluff likes 8th" / "Competative gamers like 7th" thing as an insult. I generally think it's true. Just not everybody occupies a spot at one of these extreme ends.

I am at one of the extreme ends. I'm a die hard casual gamer and I'm excited about 8th for just that reason. I found 6th and 7th dry and uninspiring. I found most of the people that embrace 7th to be more at the competative end of the scale...

That said I think most gamers fall somewhere in between the extremes. They enjoy both sides to an extent and the closer you are to center, the less of an extreme opinion of the changes you probably have.

7th edition maybe was a tournament game per se, but it did make an effort to cater to that crowd more than previous editions.

It's not a good versus bad thing, it's just understanding whoi like what and why.

GodlessM
30-06-2010, 16:31
there was a pretty good balance between unit types in 7th, it was only armybooks that were a problem. now, infantry is simply superior to cav, monsters and chariots.


Sorry but did you even play 7th? Infantry was all but useless in 7th being outclassed by everything else, so how it that any different to what you are saynig about 8th? And in 8th infantry is superior but not by so much as to make other types uselss as things were in 7th.

Anvilbrow
30-06-2010, 16:40
I still think there will be a role for small infantry units though, protecting the flanks of the larger ones for example.

Only one problem with that I foresee- any unit (esp cav) big enough to threaten the flank of a horde will blow through most small units protecting the flank. Obviously not always.

As a long time collector of every fantasy army, I can say my feelings about
8th are mixed.

On the one hand, I love big epic battles and fielding 3000+ is the norm for me for every army.

On the other hand, it's going to coast me a shload to bring my 15 armies up to what I consider snuff (i.e. large horde units- right now my big units are typically 40 strong) and I'm not a fan of the increased randomness of the rules...

I think GW have taken two steps forward and two steps back with 8th (perhaps two steps sideways?) They have crafted a game in which massive armies clash in brutal combat while simultaneously finding a way to increase revenues...

Bac5665
30-06-2010, 16:51
Infantry was NOT useless in 7E. My saurus, temple guard and skelletons beg to differ. Also, Black Guard, Grave Guard, Shades, Swordmasters, Phoenix Guard, Plague Bearers, skaven slaves/clanrats, plague censor bearers, Horrors, glade guard, bretonian bowmen, wariors of chaos, marauders, White Lions, ghouls, wraiths/banshees, Dryads, longbeards, miners and hammerers, and probably others, were all fantastic in 7E.

7E featured plenty of great infantry. So lets not engage in revisionist history here and say that in 7E, infantry was terrible. Now, a certain kind of infantry was terrible in 7E, and that was non-skaven S3 A1 infantry. (Skaven have always seemed to make those kinds of infantry work, so good for them.) HE and DE spearelves or corsairs, empire infantry (even greatswords), goblins, even orcs. These things were terrible.

And guess what? In 8E, they're STILL terrible. In combat, because everything gets more attacks, these infantry units will take more casualties than ever and thus will do WORSE in combat than currently. (Any unit that beats them in 7E will beat them by more in 8E. I've run the numbers.) Now, stubborn helps a lot, but as I've discussed in other threads on this board, eventually, stubborn will give out. And horde isn't worth it because two units are better than 1, most of the time, especially with the same number of ranks.

So these infantry that were terrible in 7E (which was a minority) will be just as terrible in 8E. Now, the infantry that I list will mostly get better in 8E, though several do get worse, and the one's that get the most better were already crazy good in 7E.

So how again does 8E help balance? Cause I'm fairly certain that it doesn't.

Necromancer2
30-06-2010, 17:06
It's balanced by making it more simple to play. ;)

matticusmaximus
30-06-2010, 17:38
The argument that implies that "knights aren't worth taking any more, infantry is cheese, etc etc" is pure nonsense.

Sure, a unit of 5 Chaos knights won't be able to massacre a unit of 20 ranked-up dwarfs with full command anymore, but guess what... they SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO.

The role that knights in 8th will play will be supportive. They will be ideal for taking out small units, monsters and monstrous infantry (which everyone seems to have now), and cracking open tough units that you've already engaged with softer, cheaper infantry. You'll no longer be able to cut down block after block with a 6-pack of knights, but you will be able to use them for flanking, attacking higher toughness models, etc.

People need to stop whining (I know, this is whineseer, it never truly stops) and just go back to the drawing board in terms of how they want to use their units

Miredorf
30-06-2010, 17:51
Although it shouldn't be the case in a hobby primarily about imagination - I think it is an important step precisely because a lot of players DO need something to be in the rulebook before thay'll consider it. The popularity of Apocalypse demonstrates this. It was perfectly possible to do large 40k narrative battles before, but lots of people wouldn't try it. Apocalypse came along and told them it was OK to experiment outside the core rules, and it's been very successful. Removing scenarios form the core rules in 7th sent the wrong signal, and its good to have them back.

I agree that the Generals compendium was brilliant, in fact I'd say its far and away the best Warhammer book of the last decade or more. Hopefully 8th is a move back to that kind of product.

Yes, its the triumph of the lazyness in the new generations.

Eternus
30-06-2010, 18:20
"Yay, now we can play scenerios because they are in the current rulebook again!" :D

There are actually a few scenarios in the back of the 7th Rulebook anyway, on top of the myriad others in the various other rulebooks and publications mentioned, I think it's just that because they weren't focussed on in the rules in the way that they will be in 8th, some people got lazy and just pitch battled their way through 7th Edition. Obviously that's down to gamers and not the 7th Edition book - scenarios have always been there if people could be bothered to spend the time to prepare for them.

enygma7
30-06-2010, 18:39
So these infantry that were terrible in 7E (which was a minority) will be just as terrible in 8E.

So how again does 8E help balance? Cause I'm fairly certain that it doesn't.

This is an inaccurate portrayal because it only considers half the facts. Yes, infantry that was poor in 7th will likely lose the combat by a greater margin in 8th, this is correct. However, in 7th they would have been broken and been destroyed after doing virtually nothing back, making them near useless and poor value for points.

In 8th the same infantry now does more damage back, especially against glass hammer opponents that hit hard but can't take it. And the most important thing - having lost the combat the infantry will then (hopefully) be testing on stubborn LD, possibly the generals LD with a re-roll for the BSB. Also consider that steadfast means that knights and elite units (such as those glass hammer units) can no longer break the enemy single handed but work well in tandum with a large unit of infantry that takes away the enemies steadfast by virtue of having more ranks.

So in 8th core infantry can act as a viable roadblock, it is vital for supporting elites and can even grind the enemy down with attrition.

Rather than the extremes presented on this forum along the lines of "infantry is broken, cavalry now sucks" I think it'll become apparant that hordes of infantry on their own cannot win combats, only hold their ground whereas cavalry/elites can kill the enemy but struggle to break them. They need to be used together.

GodlessM
30-06-2010, 19:06
The argument that implies that "knights aren't worth taking any more, infantry is cheese, etc etc" is pure nonsense.

Sure, a unit of 5 Chaos knights won't be able to massacre a unit of 20 ranked-up dwarfs with full command anymore, but guess what... they SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO.

The role that knights in 8th will play will be supportive. They will be ideal for taking out small units, monsters and monstrous infantry (which everyone seems to have now), and cracking open tough units that you've already engaged with softer, cheaper infantry. You'll no longer be able to cut down block after block with a 6-pack of knights, but you will be able to use them for flanking, attacking higher toughness models, etc.

People need to stop whining (I know, this is whineseer, it never truly stops) and just go back to the drawing board in terms of how they want to use their units


So in 8th core infantry can act as a viable roadblock, it is vital for supporting elites and can even grind the enemy down with attrition.

Rather than the extremes presented on this forum along the lines of "infantry is broken, cavalry now sucks" I think it'll become apparant that hordes of infantry on their own cannot win combats, only hold their ground whereas cavalry/elites can kill the enemy but struggle to break them. They need to be used together.

+1 for each of you.

UberBeast
30-06-2010, 19:42
I don't see the "fluff likes 8th" / "Competative gamers like 7th" thing as an insult. I generally think it's true. Just not everybody occupies a spot at one of these extreme ends.

I am at one of the extreme ends. I'm a die hard casual gamer and I'm excited about 8th for just that reason. I found 6th and 7th dry and uninspiring. I found most of the people that embrace 7th to be more at the competative end of the scale...

That said I think most gamers fall somewhere in between the extremes. They enjoy both sides to an extent and the closer you are to center, the less of an extreme opinion of the changes you probably have.

7th edition maybe was a tournament game per se, but it did make an effort to cater to that crowd more than previous editions.

It's not a good versus bad thing, it's just understanding whoi like what and why.

It's a flawed understanding based on little more than GW's stated intent; and don't they say the same things every edition anyway?

8th edition hasn't done anything significant to reduce the competitive level of the game and we can't claim a win for fluff and casual gamers when we haven't seen the trend in updated army books. What they have done is reduced the tactical level of the game and increase the devastation. That doesn't mean that people can't still be cut-throat competitive about it.

People make accusations of 7th edition being a competitive edition by confusing the imbalances of army book design with the core rules.

So far the only things leading people to believe 8th will be in any way different are GWs implied promises and the fact that new rules change the 7th edition army balance. Anyone who is simply a competitive tournament player is going to be fine with any change of rules so long as they can live with the changes in army power. I know many powergamers who are simply thrilled about the 8th edition because they get to change the way they play, but mark my words they aren't interested in any of the fluff aspects.

I'd say it's far to early to start praising the 8th edition in this regard without seeing the trend of subsequent army books. The sad part is that it only takes one or two OP books to ruin the entire game.

Nocculum
30-06-2010, 19:49
It doesn't matter how many super units you have now; if you roll the wrong scenario, no amount of cheese will save you from losing due to your standards being targeted :D

Razhem
30-06-2010, 21:49
It doesn't matter how many super units you have now; if you roll the wrong scenario, no amount of cheese will save you from losing due to your standards being targeted :D

Unless you can snipe the banner guy, you are a wood elf or are using a shade deathstar, no super unit will give a **** about this. So yeah, made a whoooooole lot of sense there.

chamelion 6
30-06-2010, 21:58
It's a flawed understanding based on little more than GW's stated intent; and don't they say the same things every edition anyway?

8th edition hasn't done anything significant to reduce the competitive level of the game and we can't claim a win for fluff and casual gamers when we haven't seen the trend in updated army books. What they have done is reduced the tactical level of the game and increase the devastation. That doesn't mean that people can't still be cut-throat competitive about it.

People make accusations of 7th edition being a competitive edition by confusing the imbalances of army book design with the core rules.

So far the only things leading people to believe 8th will be in any way different are GWs implied promises and the fact that new rules change the 7th edition army balance. Anyone who is simply a competitive tournament player is going to be fine with any change of rules so long as they can live with the changes in army power. I know many powergamers who are simply thrilled about the 8th edition because they get to change the way they play, but mark my words they aren't interested in any of the fluff aspects.

I'd say it's far to early to start praising the 8th edition in this regard without seeing the trend of subsequent army books. The sad part is that it only takes one or two OP books to ruin the entire game.

Actually what led me to think of 7th edition was the nature of the people that seemed to embrace it and the nature of their focus, at least in my personal experiences. I don't personally care if either the game or the books are balanced. The whole obsession with balance seemed to start with 6th. None of us even pretended that 5th was balanced. Hell, I had a friend whose whole army was some Chaos Lord tooled up to the point that he destroyed whole armies. 5th was ripe for all kinds of abuse. When things got out of hand we found ways to reel it back in. Chaos was all out of wack compared to most other armies...

And that's part of it. The random nature of the game, the lack of predictable balance... That's part of what I'm looking forward to. It's going to be up to the players to balance the game, not the rules.

That's a big part of the appeal to many of us, that's part of what we liked about 5th and earlier editions. That's part of where we differ, most of us casual gamers don't see the game as a contest. It's more of a simulation that allows the player to test his mettel against the dark forces of Chaos or what ever. The badder the badguy, the better the game.

Nocculum
30-06-2010, 22:03
I was referring to objective capturing and the 4th mission (I cannot remember which one precisely, the one that has 'morale' based on standards remaining).

People assume that you need to kill kill kill with X or Y super infantry this or super spell that. Now, whilst wiping out your opponent and skittering over to the objectives during the final phase is all well and good, it is neither an attractive way of playing or one that's tactically sound.

You're building your list on two, maybe three fronts now.

1. Adaptability/Survivability - the list has to work against a multitude of threats.

2. Mission - a welcome twist to 40k was this. You have to build against potential enemy and potential mission objectives.

3. Terrain - those redundant units might not be so redundant next to X building or Y river.

Having a slew of dirt cheap, **** poor at fighting but otherwise Stubborn core units with banners is a sure fire way of giving yourself leaps and bounds towards victory over 'better' units that can 'churn out the kills.'

I've seen a bucket of 8th lists on this forum with 2, maybe 3 banners at 2,500K+...

Game over turn 2? Yes please!

GodlessM
30-06-2010, 22:17
People make accusations of 7th edition being a competitive edition by confusing the imbalances of army book design with the core rules.

On the contrary most people aren't confused at all and will straight up blame the army books themselves being the reason it was a competitive edition; doesn't change the facts though.

chamelion 6
30-06-2010, 22:20
I was referring to objective capturing and the 4th mission (I cannot remember which one precisely, the one that has 'morale' based on standards remaining).

People assume that you need to kill kill kill with X or Y super infantry this or super spell that. Now, whilst wiping out your opponent and skittering over to the objectives during the final phase is all well and good, it is neither an attractive way of playing or one that's tactically sound.

You're building your list on two, maybe three fronts now.

1. Adaptability/Survivability - the list has to work against a multitude of threats.

2. Mission - a welcome twist to 40k was this. You have to build against potential enemy and potential mission objectives.

3. Terrain - those redundant units might not be so redundant next to X building or Y river.

Having a slew of dirt cheap, **** poor at fighting but otherwise Stubborn core units with banners is a sure fire way of giving yourself leaps and bounds towards victory over 'better' units that can 'churn out the kills.'

I've seen a bucket of 8th lists on this forum with 2, maybe 3 banners at 2,500K+...

Game over turn 2? Yes please!


You make some interesting and insightful points.

And I agree, the Missions are a huge part of what we like about the new 40K rules. We've all welcomed a departure from the like up and attack games of the past.

Nocculum
30-06-2010, 22:29
I actually had to pause for thought this afternoon when I started drafting some lists for the Wood Elf review/tactica I hope to put up soon when I realised that shock horror, putting standards on Glade Riders and Glade Guard and Scouts is not just preferable, but almost mandatory in games now.

It's something I've always run a mile from because they gave up victory points with virtually no return, but now they are literally game changing components. Wood Elves might be 'weaker,' but with Fast Cavalry with banners that can move freely through woods and so forth, we might never need to get into combat at all - get in, get the items, get the hell out!

Same goes for the morale mission - if we strike the standards of the enemy and obliterate the weak points, the rest of the army doesn't even come into play - it simply falls apart.

GodlessM
30-06-2010, 23:44
but with Fast Cavalry with banners that can move freely through woods and so forth,

Everyone can now move freely through woods.

Odin
01-07-2010, 00:14
@ Odin: 12 Knights are not scary in 8th. Kill three and they do not break ranks any more.
Cavalry also do not get supporting attacks, so they wonīt fight with any more attacks than before. It is fair to say that cavalry lost a lot of itīs importance, wether or not it lost too much up for debate though.

The rumour roundup suggests otherwise. Riders get supporting attacks, though steeds don't.


Cavalry
Riders only in the second rank may attack.

This is the problem with people making huge judgements based on half the facts and no experience of 8th ed rules in practice.



On the contrary most people aren't confused at all and will straight up blame the army books themselves being the reason it was a competitive edition; doesn't change the facts though.

To a large extent, yes, particularly when it comes to DoC and Dark Elves.

But the imbalance between the troop types was down primarily to the main rulebook. ver since 4th edition for example, Initiative had been irrelevant in the first round of a combat. And as a very high proportion of combats were decided in the first round, it meant that fast agile troops would always come off second best against tough strong troops. And that meant that they needed to give the High Elves the SoA rule to try and make their infantry effective in combat. But this was just papering over the cracks.

Then of course you have the fact that core infantry generally didn't cause wounds in combat. Units above 30 men were pretty pointless for the most part - there wasn't much motivation to go above that because you've already got maximum ranks, you won't cause additional casualties by getting more, so generally there's no point. Those two things combined meant a combat between infantry units was almost always a complete snooze-fest - one wound per side, with the combat decided by which unit outnumbered the other (often only by a tiny %age of the overall unit size). So a unit of 10,000 goblins would still lose combat to a unit of 20 Saurus, because both have the full +3 rank bonus, and all the additional 9,980 goblins do is add +1 for outnumbering.

So 8th is addressing this by ensuring that everyone gets to attack, and that big units do have an advantage of staying in the fight longer (which of course is exactly the point of huge infantry units).

Will it all work, I don't know. I anticipate some significant problems which they will have to work on for 8th edition. But the same is true of every edition so far.

Bac5665
01-07-2010, 02:16
In 8E, the 20 saurus STILL beat the 10,000 goblins. By 4, 5 if the saurus charge. And for thousands less. (And for the record, I had the goblins in horde formation, with spears. Saurus have spears too.)

Sure the goblins are stubborn, and that makes a big difference, but stubborn isn't infailable, and if all the game is is infantry units running at each other and then not moving for a few turns, thats a terrible game.

As far as I can tell, glass hammer units do take a hit in 8E, but otherwise, large units of weak core either still suck, or make the game boring. Obviously, I need to play the game, and of course there will be many small changes that take ages to figure out, but as far as I can tell, the balance doesn't change that much and the game has a huge potential to become a few deathstars holding in the center. i.e., boring.

Nocculum
01-07-2010, 06:08
Everyone can now move freely through woods.

From my understanding, cavalry cannot.

Odin
01-07-2010, 08:42
In 8E, the 20 saurus STILL beat the 10,000 goblins. By 4, 5 if the saurus charge. And for thousands less. (And for the record, I had the goblins in horde formation, with spears. Saurus have spears too.)

Sure the goblins are stubborn, and that makes a big difference, but stubborn isn't infailable, and if all the game is is infantry units running at each other and then not moving for a few turns, thats a terrible game.

As far as I can tell, glass hammer units do take a hit in 8E, but otherwise, large units of weak core either still suck, or make the game boring. Obviously, I need to play the game, and of course there will be many small changes that take ages to figure out, but as far as I can tell, the balance doesn't change that much and the game has a huge potential to become a few deathstars holding in the center. i.e., boring.

But the Goblins have a chance - they won't necessarily flee in the first round of combat, as they are almost certain to in 7th. Keep a battle standard nearby and they have a good chance of staying in the fight and gradually whittling the Saurus down. To me this seems a pretty good mechanic - you can't automatically win a fight just by taking a ridiculously huge unit, but you do still benefit.

And I'm sorry, but infantry combats should go on for a few turns. As for boring, I can't see how a combat with two or more ranks always striking is more boring than a combat in 7th where both units have about 6 attacks, causing one wound if they're lucky.

There is no point in a few deathstars holding the centre if you don't have any plan for the counter-attack. Plus which, don't forget that many of the new spells (and the template weapon rules) make huge units very vulnerable. Plus the sword of anti-heroes should discourage too many characters in a single unit.

Skalfgrimm
01-07-2010, 09:28
@ Odin: I seem to have read or remembered the rules for supporting attack wrong, my apologies. This indeed throws a better light on cavalry.

But I think the example of 24 Saurus (6/4) against, say 60 (10/6) nightgoblins with spreas and nets is potentially interesting. Both units have full command and cost roughly the same points (23 pts difference).

The night goblins will strike first, with 41 attacks, which on average result in 3.42 dead saurus.
The saurus will retaliate with 25 attacks, resulting in 5.21 dead goblins (8.33 in case the nets failed, which I assume did not).

Combat resolution:
Saurus: 2 ranks, standard, 5.21 kills -> 8.21
Goblins: 3 ranks, standard, 3.41 kills -> 6.41

Saurus win!

The nets are the charm here. Without them the saurus would have won higher, but due too steadfast the goblins will most likely stay in combat regardless, and both would loose approximately 14% of their unit starting unit strength per turn. It looks like a rather balanced combat, but it is a meatgrinder with the potential to go on rather long.

Iīm all for realistically and critically evaluating 8th, especially the perveived flaws of which I have already named several, but this specific example seems fair and balanced, with my only petty grievance being the inelegant rule design for steadfast.

Greetz, Skalfgrimm

Brother Loki
01-07-2010, 09:32
Yes, its the triumph of the lazyness in the new generations.

I don't think that's entirely fair. It's more a change in gaming culture. Back when I started playing (around 1987), most people who played warhammer also did RPG's and were used to the idea of making things up. More recently, GW games are likely to be people's first gaming experience, or possibly they may have played CCGs or MMORPGs (which are both much more rigid about rules and balance). Even modern RPGers go on about 'balance' nowadays, with the most likely experience coming from 3rd or 4th ed D&D, which have balance between characters as a core concept, unlike pretty much every other RPG.

When I started, there were no games shops with tables (even GW stores didn't have them then, and sold other companies products) and you played the games at home with your friends, or possibly in a club setting (though I suspect most clubs back in the 80's were more of the 'crusty historical' type which didn't really do GW). The idea of a 'pick up game' against a stranger was virtually unheard of, so there was no need for adherence to a common standard. Instore gaming changed all that, as the default game type changed for many people from prearranged games with people they knew in someone's house to pick-up games with a relative stranger at the GW store. In that environment, its more important to have a common set of rules which people don't really deviate from.

With the artificial construction of what is 'tournament legal' becoming somehow altered to mean 'the only things which are acceptable in normal play' for many people, even though only a tiny proportion of GW gamers ever play in tournaments, it's meant that many newer players (by which I mean anyone who got into the hobby in the last 10-15 years) just aren't used to the idea of narrative gaming, custom scenarios and house rules, and aren't even aware of the possibility, even though that's the style of gaming that's pretty much always been intended by the studio. Apocalypse was basically a big hardback book whose purpose (apart from encouraging model sales) was to tell newer/younger 40k players that 'house rules are OK'. From what I've read about 8th edition a large chunk of it is intended to teach new/young Warhammer players the same thing.

So to sum up, I don't think it's so much laziness as needing a kick up the backside to be more proactive, because the culture has encouraged a more passive consumption of a packaged product.