PDA

View Full Version : 5 Games in, impression of 8th edition has changed



Sparowl
03-07-2010, 06:01
After 5 test games, against four different armies, I feel like I've run through a reasonable spectrum of the new rules and have formed a decent opinion, compared to my experience with 7th and 6th, experiences which include multiple local and non-local tournaments, some of which were GW GTs.

I have started to really dislike it.

Charging is too random, requiring almost no tactical knowledge. Shooting is amazingly good, especially against things like war machines and monsters, and even more so if you have skirmishers that can march and shoot.

Magic is game breaking in ways that it wasn't before. I love how dice are generated, and I think if you couldn't generate extra dice (no banners/special abilities/spells that generate dice), then it would be the best version of magic dice generation for Warhammer yet. However, the ridiculous power level of spells breaks that. One spell can win you the game, and in two separate games, it did. Turn one, I killed 27 Lothern Sea Guard, the champion out of the unit, and the Lvl 4 wizard/general, with one spell (The Dweller's Beneath). Roughly 500-600 points of my opponent's army simply disappeared. I can't imagine traveling to tournaments anymore with this kind of stuff. How is it going to feel when, after 4 great, tactical games, you show up at game 5 and get a third of your army removed on turn 1, before you even get to move, because the guy on the other side happened to rule well and get off one of the ridiculously powerful spells on the book?

The Building rules are quite simply one of the most poorly thought out pieces of trash I've seen ever. Certain elite units are going to be able to get into buildings and stay there all game, and it will be near impossible to break them. 10 model assault parties, wounds only counting for combat res, and the defender being AUTOMATICALLY STUBBORN means that getting a unit out of building is impossible in one turn. And if you don't break them, you don't get to fight them in their turn. You have to wait until you can charge again.

I love the step up rules. I love the new terrain. I love how magic dice are generated. Unfortunately, I really feel like they dumbed down the rest of the game. Not only have they reduced the tactics to sheer random dice rolls (and having rolled doubles 1s or doubles 2s for charges and then double 6s for others, it is extremely random), but the magic can now break a game, taking a win away from someone with literally nothing more then a dice roll or two.

For the record, I have won every game so far. So don't take this as me disliking it because I'm losing. I'm disliking it because I feel a lot of the fun has been removed.

willowdark
03-07-2010, 06:05
More and more of these popping up. The con crowd is just as popular as the pro crowd, and I have a feeling it's going to continue to swell.

Thanks for the report.

Ultimate Life Form
03-07-2010, 06:08
The Building rules are quite simply one of the most poorly thought out pieces of trash I've seen ever. Certain elite units are going to be able to get into buildings and stay there all game, and it will be near impossible to break them.

Ruination of Cities... :angel:

Cracks Call... :angel:

I'm certainly looking forward to joining in the fun, too. I'm having an official game in my official GW today where they will present the official FAQs (don't know if it's the burned version or no), so I hope I'll be wiser after this...

Ramius4
03-07-2010, 06:18
Fair enough, that's your opinion.

I've played just as many games and liked everything but terrain not being much of a factor.


The Building rules are quite simply one of the most poorly thought out pieces of trash I've seen ever. Certain elite units are going to be able to get into buildings and stay there all game, and it will be near impossible to break them. 10 model assault parties, wounds only counting for combat res, and the defender being AUTOMATICALLY STUBBORN means that getting a unit out of building is impossible in one turn. And if you don't break them, you don't get to fight them in their turn. You have to wait until you can charge again.

Well don't charge them then. Let them sit there doing nothing, they can't charge you either.;) If it's an objective based game, then find other ways to get them out besides close combat.

HeroFox
03-07-2010, 07:37
Sounds like a ton of fun, and in the end as long as you have fun then the game was worth it...

Hell yeah it was fun.

Can't wait to do it again.

Lord Solar Plexus
03-07-2010, 08:07
Movement is too random, requiring almost no tactical knowledge.


Movement is the same as before. There is absolutely no random element. I'm sorry but I don't think your analysis is sound or has any ground to stand on.

Toshiro
03-07-2010, 08:12
Really great write-up HeroFox, I'm glad to see that you enjoyed your 8th ed experience, I really can't wait to join the fun myself! :D

SeaSwift
03-07-2010, 08:17
Movement is the same as before. There is absolutely no random element. I'm sorry but I don't think your analysis is sound or has any ground to stand on.

It's not the same as before, but the only random element is charging, and there is a whole thread devoted to that alone.

HeroFox
03-07-2010, 08:17
This might seem completely out of the blue, but does anyone know the average of 3d6 pick the highest 2?

My brains fried but I'm trying to estimate charge distances on cavalry now.

freddieyu
03-07-2010, 08:26
This might seem completely out of the blue, but does anyone know the average of 3d6 pick the highest 2?

My brains fried but I'm trying to estimate charge distances on cavalry now.

Don't think so much dude..just freaking charge!!!!

On the serious note, around 7-9 inches, in my opinion. At least that's how I will calculate things.....

Dungeon_Lawyer
03-07-2010, 08:30
Movement is the same as before. There is absolutely no random element. I'm sorry but I don't think your analysis is sound or has any ground to stand on.:rolleyes:

Dude
You need your head checked or to get a few more games under your belt. The movment phase has no random elements? ROTFL

HeroFox
03-07-2010, 08:33
I think he was talking more specifically on the semi-wheeling aspects of normal moving and marching and not charging.

Lord Solar Plexus
03-07-2010, 08:51
It's not the same as before, but the only random element is charging, and there is a whole thread devoted to that alone.

Moving is very close to the still current rules. Nothing in there has any bearing on tactics or skill or even fun. Charging is something entirely different. No idea what that other thread may have to do with this.

Your pale companion
03-07-2010, 08:58
Looks like the writting process went like this:
"Hey, let's fix 2 things that need fixing and break 20 other rules to the point of stupidity"
This edition is a huge meh for me.

kormas
03-07-2010, 09:08
the lack of having to measure your wheels and all that really detracts from the stratigic element in the game :(, which makes me sad because i felt that was the one part of the game that actualy required you to think a fair amount.

cheers for the report, i was thinking about putting all my gw into storage for a while and jsut staying in the wargaming comunity with a little bit of warmahords...i think from several reports, including yours, my mind has been made up...goodby gw, hello money :)

Lord Solar Plexus
03-07-2010, 09:14
Measuring wheels only ever made me think about how to hold the tape measure with only two hands without crushing any models.

Only now do I realize that this was a tactical skill that made the game enjoyable and challenging. :) :angel:

kormas
03-07-2010, 09:19
haha, but the idea of wheels taking away movement was what i liked, it forced you to think a bit more about how you moved, as far as i am aware in the new ed you simply pivot the unit whenever you want thus inmo taking away from the tactical element :).

tho tbh i am a supporter of the random charge simply because i find it rather fun...i think it is balenced out by charges not being as devistating as they used to be.

TheShadowCow
03-07-2010, 09:37
Magic is game breaking in ways that it wasn't before. I love how dice are generated, and I think if you couldn't generate extra dice (no banners/special abilities/spells that generate dice), then it would be the best version of magic dice generation for Warhammer yet. However, the ridiculous power level of spells breaks that. One spell can win you the game, and in two separate games, it did. Turn one, I killed 27 Lothern Sea Guard, the champion out of the unit, and the Lvl 4 wizard/general, with one spell (The Dweller's Beneath). Roughly 500-600 points of my opponent's army simply disappeared. I can't imagine traveling to tournaments anymore with this kind of stuff. How is it going to feel when, after 4 great, tactical games, you show up at game 5 and get a third of your army removed on turn 1, before you even get to move, because the guy on the other side happened to rule well and get off one of the ridiculously powerful spells on the book?

Surely that's just a call to cut back on the value of individual units? Or take a 600+ point unit, but know full well that there are wild card effects in the game that can render your unit-o-doom obsolete very quickly.

Lord Solar Plexus
03-07-2010, 09:44
haha, but the idea of wheels taking away movement was what i liked, it forced you to think a bit more about how you moved, as far as i am aware in the new ed you simply pivot the unit whenever you want thus inmo taking away from the tactical element :).

I don't have the book on me at the moment but afaik the diagrams for moving and wheeling are straight from the 7th E book. You also still wheel, you don't pivot. I think you still have to measure the wheel when you charge though. No idea why they kept it in this instance but perhaps I remember wrongly.

mistermaster
03-07-2010, 09:48
Reading HeroFoxīs gaming blog makes me think about GW propaganda. Sorry for the rudeness.

It sounded to me like:

the movement is simplified - BUT ITīS FUN-
the shooting is simplified and more killy -BUT ITīS FUN-
the magic is more dangerous and you can kill an army with a single spell -WHO CARES ITīS FUN AND BRING MORE MODELS TO THE TABLE-
charging is not important just charge or let your enemy charge you -BUT ITīS FUN TO ROLL 100īS DICES TO KILL STUFF-
and so on.

Again sorry for my criticism but I had to.

Donīt like some major changes and the oversimplification of 8th. Just needed some work with ArmyBooks!

HeroFox
03-07-2010, 09:51
Nothing new there mistermaster.

GW has been doing their propaganda for quite some time now.

Misfratz
03-07-2010, 09:51
Surely that's just a call to cut back on the value of individual units? Or take a 600+ point unit, but know full well that there are wild card effects in the game that can render your unit-o-doom obsolete very quickly.Indeed. Weren't "deathstar" units already strong in 7th, potentially made stronger with some of the other changes, so a counter-element is thrown into the mix.

I would think that it's not unreasonable to want to have a certain proportion of games decided by the magic phase - otherwise the magic phase would start to seem a bit pointless, no?

freddieyu
03-07-2010, 11:05
To the naysayers....Adapt or die...no choice there....8th is here to stay.

Or quit. That is entirely your prerogative, while majority of us rejoice for the upcoming fun that is 8th ed

Sparowl
03-07-2010, 11:13
Movement is the same as before. There is absolutely no random element. I'm sorry but I don't think your analysis is sound or has any ground to stand on.

I apologize for not being perfectly clear in my original post. I did mean to say "charging is too random" rather then moving.

Also, I'm fairly certain the rest of my analysis is quite sound. Looks like you stopped reading about the movement line, though.


I would think that it's not unreasonable to want to have a certain proportion of games decided by the magic phase - otherwise the magic phase would start to seem a bit pointless, no?

My problem isn't with having a strong magic phase. If anything, I like having a solid magic phase, since I run a Slann, and have run one since I started playing Lizardmen, back in 6th.

However, right now I have personally, and also watched as other people, won games based on a single spell. When an entire game can be traced to a single spell killing three quarters of a unit, including the characters in it, then magic is a little too strong in my opinion.

I largely have an issue with the character sniping aspect. Certain spells (Dweller Beneath, Final Transmutation, etc.) make it a single dice roll to kill what can be a 300-400 point character, who can be the general or hierophant of the army. And there is no defense against it besides trying to dispel it. No saves of any kind. No Look Out, Sir. For many wizards, Dweller kills on a 4+.


To the naysayers....Adapt or die...no choice there....8th is here to stay.

Or quit. That is entirely your prerogative, while majority of us rejoice for the upcoming fun that is 8th ed

Which bears relevance to the topic.......how?

freddieyu
03-07-2010, 11:36
Dweller sounds like the old staff of nurgle item from 5th ed. Wow!

Yup my previous post was an outburst with no relevance to this topic, should have been posted under the "8th is for stupid" thread...

Razhem
03-07-2010, 11:40
Indeed. Weren't "deathstar" units already strong in 7th, potentially made stronger with some of the other changes, so a counter-element is thrown into the mix.

I would think that it's not unreasonable to want to have a certain proportion of games decided by the magic phase - otherwise the magic phase would start to seem a bit pointless, no?

LIES!

The new magic system but with last edition spells and some spell dificulty tweaking would have been perfect. You would still cause damage, but because of no more scroll land, you would cast a good number of spells per turn and get a good effect for a fraction of the cost. IT would have been perfect. But now it's UBARSPELL TIME!

Sparowl
03-07-2010, 11:52
Dweller sounds like the old staff of nurgle item from 5th ed. Wow!

Yup my previous post was an outburst with no relevance to this topic, should have been posted under the "8th is for stupid" thread...

With respect to 5th, GW made a strong move away from that kind of stuff when they released 6th. I believe some of the rule developers even wrote about how they wanted to get away from "Winds of Death" winning the game for people.

Alright, as long as you're willing to admit that your previous outburst had no relevance, then I guess we can ignore it and move on.

shelfunit.
03-07-2010, 12:05
I have to say I am both pleased and worried about the new magic system. On the one hand the ever-so boring 20+ power dice armies are now gone, but some of the new spells seem to be instant win buttons if they get through, also the new mis-cast table seems to only really punish wizards in large bodyguard units, a lone wizard can usually survive a mis-cast out of a unit.

Hennessy7
03-07-2010, 12:12
I am sorry, but Dweller Bellow, Final Transmutation etc. are final spells from the list with casting value of 15+ and more. Its same spell as Infernal Gateway before. To have these spells and cast them you must have a lot of wizard levels in army a that costs some points.

These spells are made to kill horde units, if it is a horde of weak soldiers, they are relatively cheap, if they are a deathstar, its your problem. Magic is still powerfull, but I think, that the magic protection is much better now and you are much more limited to power dices, no more 20PD on 2k. If you think that magic really hurts, that you should play anti-magic right?

I havent read the rules for buildings yet,but I they are crap its shame :(

Random charge is really bad for tactics, but on the other hand, just use the statistics. Use good dices (nothing like terrible liited dics which sells GW now they must be totally unbalanced) and now your probabilities and avarage throws - in large scale you can use tactics, even though there is a random factor. Thorw of 2d6 is not so much random as it looks: you have only around 16,5% chance that you dont get at least 5 and only around 8,1% that you dont get at least 4.

Lord Anathir
03-07-2010, 12:48
to opening post:

give it some more time. lsg 30 strong + lvl4 in same unit? thats asking for it. Max 24 elves in any unit ever. Where is banner of world dragon bsb? Give the lists some time to adapt before you judge the edition. Magic will certainly devastate units but they are the natural counter to uber units. Once this happens to more people and they get over the horde m1llion attack unit hump you will start seeing units that are less susceptible to magic. If you preselect lore of life what would you do against units with high natural strength?

duffybear1988
03-07-2010, 13:10
Hmmmm I watched a game the other day and about half way through realised that 8th edition benefits those with very little tactical skill much more than it does those with a good grasp of tactics and war theory.

I saw one of the worse games I have ever seen played where an experienced gamer with a beautifully painted/converted/themed AND well balanced army got absolutely thrashed by someone who looked like they had just scraped together all the models in their collection. It didn't matter what the veteran player did against the other gamer every time he tried something it never went his way. Powerful flank charges ended in stalemate, redirects didn't really give much of a benefit, etc. In the end I watched in horror as magic took its toll on his army (he was losing 1/2 to 2/3 of a unit each turn to some spells). He gave up in turn 5 with nothing but a hydra and a cold one chariot left! Whereas the other gamer had the best part of his army still on the table.

What did I learn -

The Bad Points:
1) the game looks poorly balanced.
2) magic was overpowering to the point of game breaking.
3) very little tactical skill is needed to play 8th. In fact it seems that planning and forethought actually don't help at all.
4) stubborn units are stupid.
5) the terrain rules drag the game out far too long.
6) needing lots of basic troops and bigger units is just another way for GW to make more cash. Last edition was all about cavalry and monsters. This edition is all about big ranked units (most of us already guessed that anyway).

The Good Points:
1) it seems that the rules have been simplified somewhat for new gamers.
2) some of the weaker armies (OnG, Ogres, etc) have been given a boost.


Overall I don't like it, and considering I just finished off building an army ready for 8th I have to say i'm a tad annoyed at how simplistic it seems and how unrewarding for those who have an ounce of tactical skill.

I gave up on 7th edition half way through and looks like I will be doing the same on this edition.

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 13:14
If people are wound up about The Dweller Below from the Lore of Life, they've clearly missed the immense synergy in the rest of the lore which makes it truly powerful.

Being able to ressurect D3+1 models in a Wood Elf army counterpoints some of the weakness of Wardancers, who are prone to collapsing if they lose even a few models.

Being able to hit a unit in contact with one of your own units for 2D6 STR3 Auto-hits, adds to the combat meat-grinder.

Giving 5+ regen to a unit, more resilence.

+2 toughness to a unit, who cares about the second row of attacks?

Strength test on a unit up to 48" away? Powerful, but once you cast Throne of Vines...

2D6 STR4 hits, D6+1 models, ignore miscasts on 2+...

Don't be blinded by the 'awesome brokenness' of the number 6 spell. The danger lurks below (literally) in spells 1-5 in most of the Lores.

freddieyu
03-07-2010, 13:26
Hmmmm I watched a game the other day and about half way through realised that 8th edition benefits those with very little tactical skill much more than it does those with a good grasp of tactics and war theory.

I saw one of the worse games I have ever seen played where an experienced gamer with a beautifully painted/converted/themed AND well balanced army got absolutely thrashed by someone who looked like they had just scraped together all the models in their collection. It didn't matter what the veteran player did against the other gamer every time he tried something it never went his way. Powerful flank charges ended in stalemate, redirects didn't really give much of a benefit, etc. In the end I watched in horror as magic took its toll on his army (he was losing 1/2 to 2/3 of a unit each turn to some spells). He gave up in turn 5 with nothing but a hydra and a cold one chariot left! Whereas the other gamer had the best part of his army still on the table.

What did I learn -

The Bad Points:
1) the game looks poorly balanced.
2) magic was overpowering to the point of game breaking.
3) very little tactical skill is needed to play 8th. In fact it seems that planning and forethought actually don't help at all.
4) stubborn units are stupid.
5) the terrain rules drag the game out far too long.
6) needing lots of basic troops and bigger units is just another way for GW to make more cash. Last edition was all about cavalry and monsters. This edition is all about big ranked units (most of us already guessed that anyway).

The Good Points:
1) it seems that the rules have been simplified somewhat for new gamers.
2) some of the weaker armies (OnG, Ogres, etc) have been given a boost.


Overall I don't like it, and considering I just finished off building an army ready for 8th I have to say i'm a tad annoyed at how simplistic it seems and how unrewarding for those who have an ounce of tactical skill.

I gave up on 7th edition half way through and looks like I will be doing the same on this edition.

hmm what was the opposing army vs the dark elves?

Hennessy7
03-07-2010, 13:42
Question also is, if the dark elf list was suited for 8th ed. MSU style of gae is not viable choice in 8th.

VonUber
03-07-2010, 13:58
Question also is, if the dark elf list was suited for 8th ed. MSU style of gae is not viable choice in 8th.

MSU is the way forward for 8th, its allot more to cast at and shoot at, its more survivable than 3 or 4 huge units.

Units of 10 corsairs work wonders now :D. There great flankers and its 15A's and a 4+ save vs shooting. There brilliant in 8th. So what if big units are stuborn with there ranks, Just gun them or cast them down to normal size.

Seems the way to work with 8th now to me anyway.

But its unfortunate that level 4's are mandatory now for a game, the +4 to cast and dispel is way way too good not to have.

duffybear1988
03-07-2010, 14:00
The other army was Empire with maxed out cannons, mortars and a hellblaster, supported by a wizard lord, another wizard, a general, a couple of big blocks of infantry with detachments, as well as heaps of crossbowmen.

The Dark Elf player had a balanced list with a block each of spearmen, executioners, witch elves, an MSU unit of corsairs, a chariot, hydra, couple of bolt throwers, a level 2 sorceress, highborn, dark riders, hag on couldron, shades, and some xbowmen.

Nothing he seemed to do worked against the empire and his 20-man blocks of witch elves and executioners were killed pretty much before they even made combat.

*EDIT*


MSU is the way forward for 8th, its allot more to cast at and shoot at, its more survivable than 3 or 4 huge units.

Units of 10 corsairs work wonders now :D. There great flankers and its 15A's and a 4+ save vs shooting. There brilliant in 8th. So what if big units are stuborn with there ranks, Just gun them or cast them down to normal size.

Seems the way to work with 8th now to me anyway.

But its unfortunate that level 4's are mandatory now for a game, the +4 to cast and dispel is way way too good not to have.

Yeah lots of smaller units does seem to be the way forward, just shoot the enemy to pieces with lots of fast moving flanking stuff (pretty much what DE used to do in 7th edition).

Braden Campbell
03-07-2010, 15:01
One good hit from an Empire mortar (or two now, as the case may be) can likewise gut an entire unit. However, I'm not hearing anyone come screaming that they are "broken" or should otherwise be removed from the game.

How can a magic spell be villanized, but not a warmachine?

GodlessM
03-07-2010, 15:09
Magic is game breaking in ways that it wasn't before. I love how dice are generated, and I think if you couldn't generate extra dice (no banners/special abilities/spells that generate dice), then it would be the best version of magic dice generation for Warhammer yet. However, the ridiculous power level of spells breaks that. One spell can win you the game, and in two separate games, it did. Turn one, I killed 27 Lothern Sea Guard, the champion out of the unit, and the Lvl 4 wizard/general, with one spell (The Dweller's Beneath). Roughly 500-600 points of my opponent's army simply disappeared. I can't imagine traveling to tournaments anymore with this kind of stuff. How is it going to feel when, after 4 great, tactical games, you show up at game 5 and get a third of your army removed on turn 1, before you even get to move, because the guy on the other side happened to rule well and get off one of the ridiculously powerful spells on the book?

With a 50% chance for S3 models to fail a strength test, your opponent simply got unlucky with his rolls. That has nothing to do with the rules, and in past editions the same thing could happen.

Pete_x
03-07-2010, 15:17
The other army was Empire with maxed out cannons, mortars and a hellblaster, supported by a wizard lord, another wizard, a general, a couple of big blocks of infantry with detachments, as well as heaps of crossbowmen.

I don't feel this is a bad army. Of course we don't have an exact army list but it sounds like an army i wouldn't mind playing. Strong shooting with a decent element of cc to give the killing blow. Also with a lvl4 and a backup mage. Looks good to me.

Petey
03-07-2010, 15:48
After 5 test games, against four different armies, I feel like I've run through a reasonable spectrum of the new rules and have formed a decent opinion, compared to my experience with 7th and 6th, experiences which include multiple local and non-local tournaments, some of which were GW GTs.

I have started to really dislike it.

Charging is too random, requiring almost no tactical knowledge. Shooting is amazingly good, especially against things like war machines and monsters, and even more so if you have skirmishers that can march and shoot.

Magic is game breaking in ways that it wasn't before. I love how dice are generated, and I think if you couldn't generate extra dice (no banners/special abilities/spells that generate dice), then it would be the best version of magic dice generation for Warhammer yet. However, the ridiculous power level of spells breaks that. One spell can win you the game, and in two separate games, it did. Turn one, I killed 27 Lothern Sea Guard, the champion out of the unit, and the Lvl 4 wizard/general, with one spell (The Dweller's Beneath). Roughly 500-600 points of my opponent's army simply disappeared. I can't imagine traveling to tournaments anymore with this kind of stuff. How is it going to feel when, after 4 great, tactical games, you show up at game 5 and get a third of your army removed on turn 1, before you even get to move, because the guy on the other side happened to rule well and get off one of the ridiculously powerful spells on the book?

The Building rules are quite simply one of the most poorly thought out pieces of trash I've seen ever. Certain elite units are going to be able to get into buildings and stay there all game, and it will be near impossible to break them. 10 model assault parties, wounds only counting for combat res, and the defender being AUTOMATICALLY STUBBORN means that getting a unit out of building is impossible in one turn. And if you don't break them, you don't get to fight them in their turn. You have to wait until you can charge again.

I love the step up rules. I love the new terrain. I love how magic dice are generated. Unfortunately, I really feel like they dumbed down the rest of the game. Not only have they reduced the tactics to sheer random dice rolls (and having rolled doubles 1s or doubles 2s for charges and then double 6s for others, it is extremely random), but the magic can now break a game, taking a win away from someone with literally nothing more then a dice roll or two.

For the record, I have won every game so far. So don't take this as me disliking it because I'm losing. I'm disliking it because I feel a lot of the fun has been removed.

Wow, I feel opposite from you on most of your positions, lol.
The random charges make me feel like I'm commanding soldiers again (believe me, they are more random than a person likes). Magic is expensive and if you go magic light you re just as seriously boned as before (and dwarves are brutal with their extra dice now). The spells have yet to be a major issue for my gaming group, except when you miscast and wipe out your own units in exchange for doing piddling damage to your opponent.

The terrain is stupid. OMG one river in six is made out of Blood, or is for no reason boiling. Also they are not clear on how most of the terrain works, for example, how many people in a unit charging an obstacle need to make a difficult terrain check? The rules say that charging one causes a DT check, however it also says that units taking DT checks only do for models that go over the terrain, so since in a charge you stop at the obstacle, what the front rank only has to test, or the whole thing since it says the unit tests. Seriously, now I'm ok with terrain slowing you down less, but I don't like that they ignore the PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY of marching through woods (ignoring wood elves for just a minute), it's now just a DT check, which is just one in six. Heck, with the new rules a chariot can pretty safely go through any number of walls and not be bothered at all (oh no on a 1 in 6 i take d6 wounds on my chariot) I have already seen a goblin chariot charge through 4 linear obstacle and not take a single wounds.

The ONLY part of the terrain that makes sense is the buildings. We still try to take buildings and it is very difficult to get units out of them, and now we have assault rifles and grenades. I know, personally, that the building rules make sense, as would anyone who's done an urban combat training course or actually tried to take a building. The only argument of yours on building I agree with is that one shouldn't be forced to lose a round of fighting if they fail to oust the occupants, the fight should stay ongoing until one side routs.

I've played four games, and admittedly we play magic light, so the spells weren't a big deal (warrior priests and rune priests now being useful help put an end to highelf/darkelf magic phase domination). The terrain rules mattered in 2 games, and every time they sucked (why look we have an egyption sphinx next to a grail chapel and an orc idol, wouldn't one of those factions torn down the things of the other 2 factions?) If the terrain was more like the charts from 6th where you picked a place and then weirds stuff in character to that place was rolled I'd be happier, but really, no, it's stupid.

I'm not sure how I feel about it overall as a game, but there are a lot of bugs that need working out.

Sygerrik
03-07-2010, 16:35
MSU is the way forward for 8th, its allot more to cast at and shoot at, its more survivable than 3 or 4 huge units.

Units of 10 corsairs work wonders now :D. There great flankers and its 15A's and a 4+ save vs shooting. There brilliant in 8th. So what if big units are stuborn with there ranks, Just gun them or cast them down to normal size.

Seems the way to work with 8th now to me anyway.

But its unfortunate that level 4's are mandatory now for a game, the +4 to cast and dispel is way way too good not to have.

With respect, this is not true at all. MSU is a good way to get crushed, because all any opponent has to do is chop the unit down until it's 9 models or fewer and ignore it for the rest of the game. Such units will no longer break ranks or Steadfast. They'll just bounce off the flank of large elite blocks.

I would also say that a level 4 is not really necessary. Anything that gives you static pluses to dispel is amazingly good now. The Scrolls are also worth a look, such as the scroll that gives a unit a 4+ ward against the spell being cast.

willowdark
03-07-2010, 16:53
I disagree. Actually breaking ranks is so difficult I'd argue that it should be dropped from your expectations when formulating strategy. Getting a fully ranked unit into the flank of another fully ranked unit will be nice, but even with M+2d6 it will almost never happen.

MSU combat units might not break ranks, but they can surround the enemy and deliver more attacks. 1 unit of 30 Saurus with spears 5-wide will have 20 attacks, but 2 units of 15 fighting on supporting each other will deliver 20-40 attacks depending on the circumstances as to who charged when.

So in the first round of a combo charge the MSU army will not break ranks or compete for Steadfast, but they'll win combat, and by the second round you'll suffer so many casualties that your Ranks and Steadfast won't last much longer anyway.

Personally, I have no intention of competing for Steadfast or Breaking ranks because the rules are grossly imbalanced towards cheap infantry. I'll run MSU exclusively, though granted theyll be inherently bigger MSU units than in 7th, and just kill you more quickly than you kill me.

Especially since MSU armies tend to have great shooting and magic as support.

Petey
03-07-2010, 18:20
the other problem with msu now is that VP are only awarded to units destroyed, no more points for half measures, small units will give up more points therefor than one big one if say both side wipe out a quarter of their enemy's force, it will mean that you re likely to not lose if you have big units and likely you will if you have small.

willowdark
03-07-2010, 18:25
Well, I do think that MSU will be a division of my army and will need to be supported by at least one large block, like 2x18 Saurus and 16 Temple Guard with Slann, or 2x15 Witch Elves with a block of 30 Warriors or Black Guard.

Anvil and Hammer will still be a sound strategy, I just think that MSU will be a great way to run your hammers.

Petey
03-07-2010, 18:29
Sure, I can agree with that willow. I like that DE players (to include myself) will have to work dangerously to get msu to work and when it works it will me amazing.

Snake1311
03-07-2010, 18:41
This might seem completely out of the blue, but does anyone know the average of 3d6 pick the highest 2?

My brains fried but I'm trying to estimate charge distances on cavalry now.

Quick browse and didn't see this answered...

It's 8.46 with a standard deviation of 2.22

omnivision6
03-07-2010, 19:02
when will warhammer players realize that this game is NOT for tournaments? the design team has always had that philosophy. this is a beer and pretzel fun game to be enjoyed with friends. if you want tournaments, go play a game that was designed for them; like warmachine/hordes or magic.

Ramius4
03-07-2010, 19:04
when will warhammer players realize that this game is NOT for tournaments?

Only when people stop holding tournaments. And even then, they'll still think it's meant to be completely balanced.

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 19:07
The M;TG analogy doesn't work here I'm afraid. There are specific formats suited to tournaments and specific events catering for both competative and non-competative players (FNM and Gateway respectively).

You're right, though, the mast majority of players play 'for fun' or with friends, and even mild competativeness breeds different gaming environments and perspectives.

People are grossly over hyping the size of units too early into the edition. The only time you will see units of models going over 30 (except against Skaven) will be when games hit Grand Army size at 3,000 point level.

This will not be the standard.

This will not be the everyday.

The mast majority of people will simply play with current armies, tweaked, to suit the 2k-2,500 points bracket - if people think 50 model units in armies of that standard size are going to be more effective than 2X25, that's their prerogative, but I fear alot of people will be dissapointed, and alot of people will become jaded with the lack of apparent infantry-hammer after all these months of thinking the Horde rule will be unbeatable (and it isn't.)

Halelel
03-07-2010, 19:29
Quite the opposite experience within my gaming group, we are having more fun than ever before with Fantasy. It is quite a bonus to have 5+ hour games being completed in less than 3 hours (probably in about 2 once everyone has the rules down), meaning we can get more games in if we wish, leave if we have other plans with family/friends, or just sit around and drink while watching others play. We are also talking about getting together on weekdays (!) during the work week and getting a game in, which was unthinkable with 7th.

I don't see it as being "dumbed down", more like streamlining broken rules that only benefited certain armies. I like how I actually have to worry about Dwarfs charging my units or Ogres getting off impact hits.

Finally, I think with a smaller set of streamlined rules, it will make it much easier for GW book writers to complete balanced army books. Too often, special army rules conflicted with basic rulebook rules and lead to just plain old broken and unusable rules.

Falkman
03-07-2010, 19:36
Only when people stop holding tournaments. And even then, they'll still think it's meant to be completely balanced.
I doubt many people think the game is, or is meant to be, completely balanced.
That doesn't change the fact that getting together with lots of people and playing a bunch of games in a tournament is really fun though.

Sparowl
04-07-2010, 02:11
With a 50% chance for S3 models to fail a strength test, your opponent simply got unlucky with his rolls. That has nothing to do with the rules, and in past editions the same thing could happen.

My problem with it is the character sniping ability. 4+ to kill outright, no saves of any kind, any T3 hero or lord. I think that needs to get fixed. If GW comes out and says "Characters in units can't be sniped by unit effecting spells", then I'd be fine with it.

In the last two previous editions, it was very rare for that kind of stuff to happen, and most of them allowed the characters to get LO,S or simply be ignored by the spell.


Wow, I feel opposite from you on most of your positions, lol.

No worries, I like disagreement. If we all agreed, then conversations would get boring fast.

My problem with the random movement is that it has basically taken away the difference between the charge ranges of different units. Dwarves, Elves, Humans, even some monsters now have roughly the same chance of charging someone. And positioning to get the charge correctly doesn't really factor into the game as much.

We haven't had the terrain that random, although that is funny that you got three different types of monuments. I like a lot of the new terrain rules, and haven't really felt like it impacted a game too harshly, outside of one game where Witch Elves went through a boiling flood and lost a few models. I would rather have terrain be of lesser impact to the game then the basically impassable woods of before.

As far as buildings go, I don't want realism, I want balance. I've put a unit of Saurus in a building, and watched as nothing could be done to get them out. While real life building clearing scenarios might be incredibly difficult, I'm not interested in emulating real life if it ends up being a game breaker.

Also, I have giant walking Lizard people as my core troop. Realism doesn't really bother me.

I think you'll be surprised if you hit a game with a "heavy magic" phase. Although heavy vs. light is hard to define now. Anyway, the new magic can have incredibly impact on the game.


when will warhammer players realize that this game is NOT for tournaments? the design team has always had that philosophy. this is a beer and pretzel fun game to be enjoyed with friends. if you want tournaments, go play a game that was designed for them; like warmachine/hordes or magic.

I'm sorry, I must have missed where the design team said that. Any chance you could get me a quote, with source?

Regardless of whether or not you can find me something where they say that, and I doubt you can since up until now, every time someone has used that line, they've never been able to back it up with sources, I call bull on it.

GW hosts Rogue Trader Tournaments, Grand Tournaments, Ard'Boyz Tournaments. They hold TOURNAMENTS for money, with prizes. So, since the company that makes the game holds tournaments, I'd say it is meant to be a tournament style game.

shortlegs
04-07-2010, 02:24
It seems that those who prefer competitive playing and winning through skill/choices made during the game will dislike 8th ed. While those who just want to have laughs and fun, who don't mind playing less optimized lists and making less optimum choices in-game in the name of fun, will enjoy 8th ed more.

End of the day though, I would think that the population pool in the latter camp is much larger and as such, at least from GW's perspective, 8th ed was a move in the right direction.

Sygerrik
04-07-2010, 04:13
It seems that those who prefer competitive playing and winning through making a more optimal list before the game will dislike 8th ed. While those who just want to have laughs and fun, who don't mind playing less optimized lists and making less optimum choices in-game in the name of fun, will enjoy 8th ed more.

End of the day though, I would think that the population pool in the latter camp is much larger and as such, at least from GW's perspective, 8th ed was a move in the right direction.

Fixed that for ya. The idea that 7th edition involved any "tactics" other than a prolonged game of chicken to get in on the flanks makes me laugh. 8th edition makes you take risks, keeps flank charges important while allowing other methods to work, increases the power of combined charges, and prevents single overpowered monsters/heroes from cracking units by themselves.

It's a common thread for the most prominent 8th edition haters to make themselves out as oppressed tactical geniuses lamenting the dumbing-down of their beloved ultra-tactical wargame. Frankly I find the whole thing a bit silly and patronizing. Pretending that winning a game of 7th had more to do with tactics than with spell spam, huge monsters, killy characters and death stars is quite a feat of selective memory.

riotknight
04-07-2010, 05:15
Ahhh Whineseer, you never disappoint.


8th Edition is all about playing a FANTASY WAR GAME. With magic, and lots of chaos going on all around.

7th Was more like playing a game of chicken, who would blink first and fall for the inevitable bait/flee? Some armies did better than others when pulled out of position, but generally, nothing died until about turn 3 (especially if it was a non-shooting army like VC vs Khorne Daemons). And after 1-2 rounds of combat, it was usually clear who the winner was.

Now? We play a full 6 turns because every turn it could be a game changer.

Don't like it? Play 7th, or play risk. I play ultra-competitive WAAC by nature and I am SUPER happy with this new edition. why? because none of my old tricks work anymore! No more 5man units of Chaos Knights flanking and obliterating units on their own, No more daemons with 17PD and the ability to pump out more.

Adapt.

LuitpoldFrohlich
04-07-2010, 05:26
My sentiments exactly, Sygerrik and riotknight.


It's a common thread for the most prominent 8th edition haters to make themselves out as oppressed tactical geniuses lamenting the dumbing-down of their beloved ultra-tactical wargame. Frankly I find the whole thing a bit silly and patronizing. Pretending that winning a game of 7th had more to do with tactics than with spell spam, huge monsters, killy characters and death stars is quite a feat of selective memory.

Best summation yet of this "debate".

Maoriboy007
04-07-2010, 05:51
I would like 8th except for the underlying truth in this statement


Looks like the writting process went like this:
"Hey, let's fix 2 things that need fixing and break 20 other rules to the point of stupidity"

A little exagerated perhaps, but uncomfortably close to the mark.

Don Zeko
04-07-2010, 05:59
This might seem completely out of the blue, but does anyone know the average of 3d6 pick the highest 2?

8.458 inches. Suck it, Wild Riders.

Angelust
04-07-2010, 06:06
Since "tactical" and "strategy" have fairly nuanced definition, I think it might be better to use the term "player skill".

It seems as if the following is being said (basically):

7th edition had less random elements. This meant less variables in the game, which would allow personal player skill to be a greater factor in victory.

8th edition has two elements which are far more decisive to victory, yet do not necessarily require proportionate levels of skill to benefit from: Charge ranges and Magic phases.

Thus, the move from 7th to 8th has placed greater emphasis on uncontrollable variables, and has lessened the importance of player skill when it concerns earning a victory. Ergo, it requires less skill to win games.


Counter arguments seem to be:

7th edition was less determined by random elements, and yet wasn't determined by personal player skill either.

Since miniature gaming is not chess or checkers or another game with pieces being identical in placement, movement, capability, etc, the composition of play pieces of two opponents is asymmetrical, like Poker. This means that in any particular match up, one opponent will likely be favored to win, though ideally, good designers would create armies that were either balanced as a whole against any other army, or at least balanced in a rock-paper-scissors fashion so that there would be bad match ups cyclically, so that every army had an achilles heal of some kind. Army-to-Army balance would of course be favored.

Unfortunately, 7th edition (and all of GW's army designs, based on Codex Creep, etc) was not well balanced, so that a pre-designed Daemons army or VC army would be vastly superior to many other pre-designed armies. Daemons vs. orcs, VC vs. Beastmen, etc, would highly favor DoC and VC in most conceivable match ups.

With such a striking disparity between two player's play pieces, coupled with a reduced element of random variability, what resulted was many games ending up feeling like a game of Hold-Em Poker, where you could basically decide your starting hand pre-game. The DoC player would choose pocket aces, the O&G player would choose three-ten off suit. There would of course be some randomness in game, but it would be a minimal factor when determining victory in too many cases.

Therefore 8th corrects this somewhat by limiting many of the "abusive" builds, and adding greater randomness to certain elements.



In my estimation, 8th does seem to be shaping up to depend less on player skill than 7th, since victory is more determined by dice than by decision than it's previous incarnation.

However, 7th began to be completely unfun and unplayable in my opinion against any opponent who took winning seriously at a pre-purchasing meta level. That means, people who wanted to win went out and bought a Tzeentch 20+ PD DoC army from hell and could stomp a 10 year vet with his Wood Elf army 9 out of 10 times without really having to actually resort to skill to win. The game was overwhelmingly in his favor to begin with. Therefore the game in action utilized more skill, but the outcome was too drastically turned in favor of the person who showed up with the better army.

All in all, I'd rather have balanced beer and pretzels while rolling dice than a completely unplayable competitive match-up any day.

If I just wanted a game of player skill, I'd play chess or Go or mancalla or something.

Casshole
04-07-2010, 06:11
There are stupid rediculous spells in many of the 7e books, but now more armies have access to them. I've been single handedly obliterated by infernal gateway spam many times so I am really not sympathizing with you.

Also a good mortar shot will do a bunch of damage.

I never liked how easy it was to force a unit from a building, and in the last edition my elves would always be forced out by more gobbos than could actually fit in the building.

Ill agree the terrain rules feel very goofy and definitely make the game take longer. I have a feeling we'll be rolling on the random terrian chart for one of the terrain pieces we actually pick and just seasoning to taste, since terrain and we knew it is much less impactful. I think I will have alot of problems with the way the cover system works, I much prefer 40ks approach especially via area terrain.

Also TLOS is not something i particularly like, especially since I like tall centerpieces for my armies. Not a fan of it in 40 k either but at least theres alot less dudes on the field.

I think that armies that are good with MSU will still be good with that, and armies that are good in numbers are now up to par. Of course the high elves/Dark elves etc wont field a ton of massive units, and even then they are fragile and expensive. Armies will still play similarly id reckon, just that there are alot of rewards with bigger units now. There was never a real rule reason to take horde style units, they were just cool. Small units was good because they were efficeint use of points. now big ones are too.

What youll see is people who want to run big units running big units. Well supported elite units will still be able to take on huge units, al be it not automatically.

Its been said before, but its about risk management on charges now. I wasnt a big fan of the precision of the movement phase, partly because its very mechanical and partly because it just didn't feel like a war. War is exceedingly random, and a good general learns to channel that randomness in his favor.

I played 7e because thats where the game was, but i never really liked it all that much and won't miss it a bit.

Lord Solar Plexus
04-07-2010, 06:19
I apologize for not being perfectly clear in my original post. I did mean to say "charging is too random" rather then moving.

Also, I'm fairly certain the rest of my analysis is quite sound. Looks like you stopped reading about the movement line, though.


Well, I pretended I did. Not knowing the difference between moving and charging isn't what I consider a good basis for an analysis. I realize I sound harsh and *I* apologize for *that* but it appears to me that you did not consider several other aspects. Skirmishers who march and shoot for example aren't overly powerful, not when they are hitting on 6's and cannot effectively march block much.

Some magic spells are quite strong but we have had Gateways, Pits and Comets for quite a while I gather. Could these not remove units, too? What about an army with strong magic in 7th - does it matter whether they beat the crap out of someone incapable of a good magic defense with several spells or do that now with just one? Even with items, you cannot plan on it. That will fail more often than not simply because others can take defensive items.

The fact that one can kill characters seems to me to be an equalizer. You will need to get the spell in the first place, and you must take that particular lore to start with. With so many useful spells in all lores, that's already a difficult decision. Since you have to chose your lore when writing a list, you cannot even be certain whether character killing spells will be worth it. Certainly, everyone has a General and he's important but killing Captains or Gobbo heroes? Meh. Lastly, what about MR? doesn't that provide a save against spell damage?

Sparowl
04-07-2010, 06:26
Frankly I find the whole thing a bit silly and patronizing.

Silly and patronizing. Like the tone of your post? Thanks for contributing.


Ahhh Whineseer, you never disappoint.

Your lack of civility does disappoint. Thanks for contributing.


Best summation yet of this "debate".

I prefer the term "discussion". But I don't really feel like it was a good summation. In fact, the majority of people never claimed to be "tactical geniuses". But thanks for contributing.



Unfortunately, 7th edition (and all of GW's army designs, based on Codex Creep, etc) was not well balanced, so that a pre-designed Daemons army or VC army would be vastly superior to many other pre-designed armies.

Therefore 8th corrects this somewhat by limiting many of the "abusive" builds, and adding greater randomness to certain elements.


First of all, thanks for giving this some thought and a well written post, as opposed to insulting people as a weak attempt at an argument. That's what I was hoping for when I originally posted.

I agree with you about the imbalance of books being the problem with 7th edition. Too many of the books were written to take advantage of the rules in one or two phases, vastly overpowering any other army in those phases.

8th edition did a lot to curtail those abuses. The changes to how magic dice are generated and how the phase works (breaking concentration, mainly), the changes to how combat are resolved, changes to how fear works, these things help balance the books.

However, I don't feel that the changes to charging really fix any part of the game. Cavalry already had a lot of things fixed by the changes to combat (steadfast, stepping up). Monsters not being able to break ranks and units being able to reform after combat does a lot to fix them.

Since all charging really does is add +1 CR, I don't see why we needed the addition of the random charge distances.

Besides that, my other major problem is the new magic lores. Some of the spells are simply too powerful and need to be changed to not sniping characters or allowing LO,S.


Well, I pretended I did. Not knowing the difference between moving and charging isn't what I consider a good basis for an analysis...

Lastly, what about MR? doesn't that provide a save against spell damage?

Well, if you make a single mistake of one word, I'll try not to discount your entire argument.

If a spell says "No Saves of any kind", then MR doesn't do anything. And there are numerous spells that say that, The Dweller Beneath being the one I used as an example.

Angelust
04-07-2010, 06:41
I agree with your conclusions Sparowl.

Personally I feel like WHFB's main draw was the relative certainty of the movement phase, including charge moves. I don't care if my combat lord fails four 2+ AS in a row, since it makes for memorable games and can be visualized imaginatively, even if it feels a little slapstick. However, failing 9" charges when my warriors suddenly learned how to pick up their capes and run at the enemy rubs against the grain of imagination a bit too abrasively.

8th may simply staunch the bleeding of codex creep, but my feeling is we'll still see 2-4 armies dominating the tourney circuits when the dust settles. I'm personally just hoping local games become much more playable despite the army book the opponent whips out, whether O&G, DoC, etc.

chamelion 6
04-07-2010, 07:13
It's a common thread for the most prominent 8th edition haters to make themselves out as oppressed tactical geniuses lamenting the dumbing-down of their beloved ultra-tactical wargame.

Yeah... I have to say that seems to be the case. Not in every case, but that's the general twist. I've tried to approach this as a discussion of the game's merits and failures from both points of view. There have been discussions on the nature of narrative gaming, competative gaming and even the historical side of the game. But the argument against anything put up comes back to this. To the point that for some I think is just down right anger.

So be it. I'm not a tournament gamer and never will be. If likeing 8th edition makes me an incompetent, unsophisticated, and tactically blind gamer, I'm actually good with that. It doesn't diminish the enjoyment of the game one bit. If that's the only possible answer some people can rationalize for why others like the new edition, then lets just go with that.

Now, if you will excuse me I'm late for my competative basket weaving group....

:D

LuitpoldFrohlich
04-07-2010, 07:24
I prefer the term "discussion". But I don't really feel like it was a good summation. In fact, the majority of people never claimed to be "tactical geniuses". But thanks for contributing.

Now who's being patronizing?

The only argument against 8E I've been discounting is the "death of tactics/nothing but a dice rolling contest" BS that continually rears its ugly head. This argument does basically come down to moaning about losing the little 7E gimmicks that people are used to.

Having not played 8E, I take no position on whether it's any good or not. I do know that 7E is/was no great shake itself, and the introduction of random charge ranges is not the death knell of tactical thought in the game.

As someone with extensive experience with game systems beyond WHFB/40K that do utilize randomized movement/command sequences, I can state categorically that tactics do not cease to exist simply because a player can't tell to the exact 1/4 inch where on the table a particular unit will be at the end of a particular turn or whether their opponent will be able to get a successful charge off at a specific juncture.

7E's tactics may no longer apply in 8E, but to constantly bemoan the "dumbing down" of WHFB to a game requiring "no skill" is indeed patronizing - and flatly incorrect.

Lord Solar Plexus
04-07-2010, 07:48
Well, if you make a single mistake of one word, I'll try not to discount your entire argument.


I disagree with most of your premises and I disagree with your conclusions if that makes it any better.

Sparowl
04-07-2010, 08:00
Now who's being patronizing?

7E's tactics may no longer apply in 8E, but to constantly bemoan the "dumbing down" of WHFB to a game requiring "no skill" is indeed patronizing - and flatly incorrect.

I was being patronizing to people who contribute nothing to the thread, but are patronizing to others. People who are contributing are thought of highly.

I don't feel that "bemoaning the 'dumbing down' of WHFB" is patronizing. It is stating that I'm sad at the loose of what I felt was a tactically element of the game.

"no skill"? No, the game has some skill elements left. I just feel like several were removed incorrectly. Static charge distances is one of the things I didn't feel needed to be removed.


I disagree with most of your premises and I disagree with your conclusions if that makes it any better.

Specifically? Your statement doesn't give us a lot of room for discussion.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
04-07-2010, 08:13
[edit] Looking at this wall of text, I realize it it a bit OT. ;) Read at your own peril.



I'm sorry, I must have missed where the design team said that. Any chance you could get me a quote, with source?

Since the design team itself never actually says anything when they are in the design team, it would be pretty damn hard. However, three previous members of the design team has said some things I find rather unsettling.

During Alessio Cavatore's podhammer interview (http://podhammer.net/2010/05/31/854/) he talks about tournament and "fluff" play and how he entered the design team as a tournament player. Listen to it yourself to get the verbatim, but the gist of it is that he in the end understood that "fluff-oriented" (non-sic) play was what the design team was aiming for and he corrected his attitude accordingly. He also says words to the effect that one cannot cover every situation that will prop up in the game, and that there are always situations that should be covered by rolling a d6.

There is also this interview with Gavin Thorpe:
http://www.bugeatergames.com/?p=123

Where he says a number of thing I am not sure how to respond to exept with puzzling looks. He claims open beta playtesting with a staff the size of GW's is impossible, comparing it to computer game companies and their "entire customer support departments dedicated to assimilating that feedback". Now I know a few people who work in computer game design, and they certainly would like those enormous customer support departments if he knows where they are to be found! This particular comment also makes little sense when compared with Privateer Press' Field Test - the assimilation certainly stressed David Carl quite heavily, but it worked - problems in both rules and balance between armies was discovered, evaluated and corrected. Seen in context to Cavatore's statement in the podhammer interview where he talks about a certain Ratling Gun imbalance issue and flat-out admits it was published as it was due to inferior playtesting...well, make up your own conclusions.

He also makes appeal to the "silent majority" of non-tournament players that he defines as such:

Let’s take two extremes – the hardcore tournament gamer and the fluffy collector that just likes to push toy soldiers around. The first wants balance, strict definitions and tight control over what is in people’s armies. The second wants freedom, opportunity to express creativity and flexibility to explore their own vision of what constitute an appropriate army or entertaining scenario.

I don't know, but I think it should be fully possible to find a position that satisfies both those "extremes". I also think that the second sort of player hardly needs a gaming company to write his rules.

Overall, Thorpe expresses an attitude that resembles that Cavatore describes: the "fluffy" players are a larger group, should be listened to more (or rather, what the design team thinks the silent majority likes should be "listened" to) and the tournament players should understand that Papa Design Team knows best, even when he writes unclear and contradictory rules like a senile old goof :D

The final interview is podhammers old Anthony Reynolds interview (http://podhammer.net/2008/11/11/podhammer-bonus-episode-anthony-reynolds/), where he at one point describes GWs approach to army book writing and to some extend details how much influence the miniature design people and business people have to do with what he is allowed to put in a new army book. If you listen to Cavatore, he also passes by this issue in a tangent. One can make of that what one will.

My personal overall impression is not that GW doesn't really want to create a WHFB tournament game. It is that GW is primarily interested in keeping themselves going in the same direction they've been going for a long time, and that tournament players are not an essential part of that direction as much as I'd like. I also think they seem pretty lazy, dismissing new ways of playtesting claiming they won't work (even when they do) and that the silent majority agrees with them. From Gav Thorpe especially, I get the idea that the attitude is more that it should be fun to be on the design team; they should be paid their salaries for pushing little army men around with their friends and laughing at whatever rules issues pop up before they roll the proverbial magic D6 and/or make a rules adjustment. Also, they get to write battle report articles for a nerdy magazine where it is quite obvious that the roleplaying aspect of the game is as important to them as it was back when the game was first published. This would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that there is a tournament scene were everybody has not been friends for the last decade and in fact don't know one another.

So in that set of not-so-rosy mirrorshades, the tournament players frankly can go suck it. What they want is actually not wanted, and they should bow to the superior wisdom of the designers and the silent majority that support them.

I'm not that impressed by what I've seen of 8th edition so far. I gave WHFB a new chance after looking at 6th and 7th for a long time as a game, and I will give 8th half a year for the FAQs to come out and the dust to settle. If my impression is the same: that they put out something that solved some old issues and introduced a lot of new ones alongside upping the random elements of the game - something that, in recent editions of 40k, has kept me away from that system since I quit over ten years back - I'm out again.

Fundamentally, I'm sad about this. I am one of those guys who entered PP tournaments with Mk1 Reznik and the High Reclaimer, because I liked their playstyle even if I would not with the tourney against even semi-capable players. Not always - sometimes it would be fun to max out a list - but I am the sort of player that enjoys both competitiveness and "fun", and indeed believes that the two are fully compatible. I believe that Gavin Thorpe is entirely mistaken: it is quite possible to create a WHFB that caters to both tournament players and fluff players and enable the two to play in tournaments against each other. The tournament players will likely win - it is what they are focusing on - but still fun can be had by all. However, my impression is that GW doesn not think that this - making sure their entire player base has fun - is important, and that the designers simply are too lazy and/or hamstrung by other considerations to be able to create that in the current shape of WHFB rules. :cries:

Sparowl
04-07-2010, 08:27
[edit] Looking at this wall of text, I realize it it a bit OT. ;) Read at your own peril.

Sir, I appreciate your post and enjoyed looking at that stuff. I will now retract my statement about no one ever finding me a quote from the designers saying that it isn't a tournament game.

That said, GW hosting tournaments still makes that statement seem like a lie.

I agree with you when you said that game designers can please both "tournament" players and "fun" players at the same time. In the previous edition, that argument was based on the looseness of the rules and the constant need for FAQs. As someone once wisely said (I forget who, sadly):

"Well written rules benefit everyone."

While I hope for some good changes out of the FAQs, my current experience is showing some serious issues in my opinion that should have been solved before release. Playtesting should have found these problems. Unless GW doesn't continue them issues, in which case I disagree with their definition of "balance" and "fun".

Petey
04-07-2010, 08:32
My problem with it is the character sniping ability. 4+ to kill outright, no saves of any kind, any T3 hero or lord. I think that needs to get fixed. If GW comes out and says "Characters in units can't be sniped by unit effecting spells", then I'd be fine with it.

In the last two previous editions, it was very rare for that kind of stuff to happen, and most of them allowed the characters to get LO,S or simply be ignored by the spell.



No worries, I like disagreement. If we all agreed, then conversations would get boring fast.

My problem with the random movement is that it has basically taken away the difference between the charge ranges of different units. Dwarves, Elves, Humans, even some monsters now have roughly the same chance of charging someone. And positioning to get the charge correctly doesn't really factor into the game as much.

We haven't had the terrain that random, although that is funny that you got three different types of monuments. I like a lot of the new terrain rules, and haven't really felt like it impacted a game too harshly, outside of one game where Witch Elves went through a boiling flood and lost a few models. I would rather have terrain be of lesser impact to the game then the basically impassable woods of before.

As far as buildings go, I don't want realism, I want balance. I've put a unit of Saurus in a building, and watched as nothing could be done to get them out. While real life building clearing scenarios might be incredibly difficult, I'm not interested in emulating real life if it ends up being a game breaker.

Also, I have giant walking Lizard people as my core troop. Realism doesn't really bother me.

I think you'll be surprised if you hit a game with a "heavy magic" phase. Although heavy vs. light is hard to define now. Anyway, the new magic can have incredibly impact on the game.



I'm sorry, I must have missed where the design team said that. Any chance you could get me a quote, with source?

Regardless of whether or not you can find me something where they say that, and I doubt you can since up until now, every time someone has used that line, they've never been able to back it up with sources, I call bull on it.

GW hosts Rogue Trader Tournaments, Grand Tournaments, Ard'Boyz Tournaments. They hold TOURNAMENTS for money, with prizes. So, since the company that makes the game holds tournaments, I'd say it is meant to be a tournament style game.

I think the only real sniping list is death and it seems to be designed for that, the others really don't do that so well.

As to the terrain, I guess we ll have to agree to disagree. Terrain is super important in war, and it would be for armies with monsters, just ask the indians that fought alex the great. I get that you want balance terrain, I want that too, but balanced against what? In my opinion, it needs to be useful and purposeful to have terrain on the table. Useful in that there should be some advantage to using it or forcing your opponent to work around it and purposeful in that it should feel like it belongs there. I don't mind the rules for generic forests, buildings, walls, and water; but it bothers me how disjointed it all is and how over the top fantastical it all is. If you were to have to place d6 plus 3 terrain and the first one Had to be a fantastical piece in the center, then all the rest (or most of the rest) would be more normal I would have been fine with it, it just seemed to go from fantasy to nonsense. For me terrain needs to have an element of game win to it, as it was so important historically to every general, now it just seems like an inconvenient fog that annoys your figs, or an automated gun turret that hates both armies.
Seriously what would be great is if each army book had a terrain table and you rolled off at the start of the game as to which table to use, or even better if you rolled a tie you roll every other piece from each book.

PS saurus warriors holding a building don't really help your opponent win anymore in pitched battles, as table quarters are meaningless, so it won't be a big deal often.

As to your point on charges, I agree that the implementation of the idea is not that good, but I maintain that the idea is sound. A better way to do it would have been 2d take the highest one plus M for infantry charges and cav staying 3d take the highest two plus M.

I ll try to go crazy with casters next time, I ll let you know how it goes.

LuitpoldFrohlich
04-07-2010, 08:34
I was being patronizing to people who contribute nothing to the thread, but are patronizing to others. People who are contributing are thought of highly.

You specifically belittled Sygerrick's and riotknights' lengthier statements, as well as my own short one concurring. I take it you then are the arbiter of what constitutes a "contribution" to the debate? Any forum post stating agreement with a previous poster is now worthy denigration?


I don't feel that "bemoaning the 'dumbing down' of WHFB" is patronizing. It is stating that I'm sad at the loose of what I felt was a tactically element of the game.

"no skill"? No, the game has some skill elements left. I just feel like several were removed incorrectly. Static charge distances is one of the things I didn't feel needed to be removed.

Fine, dislike 8E random charge distances all you want. But, again, random charge distances do not in of themselves constitute in any way, shape, or form, a "dumbing down" of the tactical element of the game. Many far more serious and tactically nuanced miniatures rules sets than WHFB include random movement/command factors to simulate the "friction of command". For some rulesets, it is more central to game play than combat resolution.

And the constant insistence that one is turned off by 8E because it is now a tactically inferior endeavor, and not simply a matter of taste, is condescending by implication to those who find 8E enjoyable.

Petey
04-07-2010, 08:39
Kaptajn Congoboy, i <3 u.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Though I am not as pessimistic as you are about the hobby or its direction, I don't disagree with much that you ve said.

Thank you for citing sources, I have felt the same but didn't bother to note where I heard what. Your skills are superior in this regard.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
04-07-2010, 08:52
Thank you :)

I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to GW, I fear, mainly due to many, many disappointments. That being said, I am a PP Press Ganger (primarily to build a tourney scene in Oslo, I am sniffing around 10mm medieval, Malifaux and Firestorm Armada as well) and I am absolutely not convinced their HORDES Mk2 release is of the same quality as their WARMACHINE Mk2 release, so even companies i think have not disappointed me do not escape the cloud of DOOM.



That said, GW hosting tournaments still makes that statement seem like a lie.


Well, the Throne of Skulls "tournament" rules makes the statement quite reasonable in GW's own optics. But it has a rather "everybody gets a lollipop" approach to tournaments...:D

chamelion 6
04-07-2010, 09:38
Fundamentally, I'm sad about this. I am one of those guys who entered PP tournaments with Mk1 Reznik and the High Reclaimer, because I liked their playstyle even if I would not with the tourney against even semi-capable players. Not always - sometimes it would be fun to max out a list - but I am the sort of player that enjoys both competitiveness and "fun", and indeed believes that the two are fully compatible. I believe that Gavin Thorpe is entirely mistaken: it is quite possible to create a WHFB that caters to both tournament players and fluff players and enable the two to play in tournaments against each other. The tournament players will likely win - it is what they are focusing on - but still fun can be had by all. However, my impression is that GW doesn not think that this - making sure their entire player base has fun - is important, and that the designers simply are too lazy and/or hamstrung by other considerations to be able to create that in the current shape of WHFB rules. :cries:

Wow... I agree and feel your frustration in that GW is not catering much to the tournament crowd. But I don't at all agree that there is some magical rule epiphany that's going to unite gamers like me with the tournament crowd. I don't see myself happily being the fodder to some power gamer's ego because some rule set makes me feel good about it.

I don't like tournaments. I don't like the atmosphere tournaments create. I find the single minded obsession with fair and balance suffocating. I find games play like sporting matches a complete waste of time, dry, lifeless, and devoid of imagination. I understand others enjoy all of that, I can even see why. What changes do you envision that will make me enjoy that approach.

When 5th became 6th the game became lifeless to me. And the game didn't fully embrace the whole tournament thing. When 7th move it a little closer to that kind of gaming, I sold my stuff and walked away. Obliviously as did quite a few more.

You talked about how bad 40K is yet the changes to 5th has made it the best gaming experience I'v had in YEARS. All the more so because it completely embraces a style and attitude that ISN'T about tournament, competitive gaming.

I believe your a decent guy, I could probably enjoy a few beers with ya and even enjoy some other game with ya, but I don't see myself and you really enjoying WFB or 40K together. It's not at all a personal thing, but we're coming at this thing from two completely different places and there is no relationship on that level. I tried the whole competitive scene for quite some time and I hated it.

I think at one point GW really wanted to capture the competitive crowd and went to great lengths to make them happy, but in doing so they alienated gamers like me. The writing was on the wall, as I see it. They were either in a position of fully embracing the whole tournament / competitive concept or trying to recapture the "fluff" crowd, for lack of a better term. Had the sales been there I guarantee they'd have gone the competitive rout. So in the end I also agree that it was a business decision.

I play competitive games, but WFB and 40K aren't amongst them. There are far better rules for that kind of thing. WFB and 40K were a diversion away from those kinds of games and environment and a chance to get creative. The reality is, from my experience, the more the emphasis on fairness and balance, the more the creativity is squashed out of it because it upsets that delicate balance.

I don't agree that GW rules are always poorly written, but they're appeal is to a crowd that enjoys something different than you're looking for. It was only to the competitive crowd that issues of balance were a problem.... 5th had very little pretense to balance but was loved by many all the same. It was only during the 6th and 7th editions that these rifts began to appear and endless squabbling over mechanics and balance appeared.

40K and WFB simply did much better as a Beer and Pretzels, light hearted, pseudo-RPG fantasy battle game.

At least to me..............

If I'm going to go the competitive rout, there are much better rules for that and their always have been.

Ok... sorry about the rant...

Continue... Nothing else to see here... :eyebrows:

Kaptajn_Congoboy
04-07-2010, 10:28
You are entitled to ranting, chamelion. But simultanously, you are also obliged to understand that you are on one of the fringes of the debate, whereas I, at least the way I perceive myself, is much more in the middle. Perhaps the GW designers are like you and want their games to be like that. In that case, have fun with their games. As I wrote, I will not be joining you, and. Pen and paper Roleplaying games with a good GM will always be my outlet for pure "fluff" gaming in any setting. As I wrote, however, I have no problem with playing at less than my best in tourneys - fully comprehending that I will no win that tourney, and fully at peace with it.

You perception of the tournament athmosphere, I'd forward, is exactly that - a perception. Here is one of my observations based on my perception: I have been to highly competitive tournaments, games and sports alike, where fun most certainly was at the center of the experience. What all those had in common was that the rules were clearly written and well defined. I have also been to complete clusterf***s that were marred by rules lawyering and dodgy interpretations and practices - in what was publicised as a "friendly" environment. Badly written, messy systems create such situations habitually and demand that the TOs try to rectify the situation.

I entirely disagree with your idea of balance (and in my implication, properly and clearly written rules) being incompatible with creativity and flexibility. I do, however, believe that such ideas are frequently put forward by lazy game designers who do not have the capacity or the interest to combine the two.

Badger[Fr]
04-07-2010, 11:21
It's a common thread for the most prominent 8th edition haters to make themselves out as oppressed tactical geniuses lamenting the dumbing-down of their beloved ultra-tactical wargame. Frankly I find the whole thing a bit silly and patronizing. Pretending that winning a game of 7th had more to do with tactics than with spell spam, huge monsters, killy characters and death stars is quite a feat of selective memory.



The only argument against 8E I've been discounting is the "death of tactics/nothing but a dice rolling contest" BS that continually rears its ugly head. This argument does basically come down to moaning about losing the little 7E gimmicks that people are used to.
This is, unfortunately, true. 7th Edition was all about gimmicks and army builds, and, as a consequence, most games were utterly predictable and boring.

Ozorik
04-07-2010, 11:27
Why do you assume that the same will not be true of 8th?

Nocculum
04-07-2010, 11:42
Why do people still assume that Warhammer is the exception to that, given every game, hobby and set of rules has resulted in competitive play, optimised lists and redundancy since Chess and Mandala and heir kin were invented millennia ago?

CauCaSus
04-07-2010, 12:02
I am sorry, but Dweller Bellow, Final Transmutation etc. are final spells from the list with casting value of 15+ and more. Its same spell as Infernal Gateway before. To have these spells and cast them you must have a lot of wizard levels in army a that costs some

No you don't. You need a single lvl 4 and 4 power dice to be able to cast a spell like that, assuming you actually get the spell that is. I agree with most of your other points though.

edit: wow, that was a bit late to the party, I was sure the thread was only 2 pages long

Arasaka
04-07-2010, 13:42
I entirely disagree with your idea of balance (and in my implication, properly and clearly written rules) being incompatible with creativity and flexibility. I do, however, believe that such ideas are frequently put forward by lazy game designers who do not have the capacity or the interest to combine the two.

Well said in all your posts!

I feel exactly as you, and skipped WHFB 6th/7th and 40K 4th/5th. After 22 years of the same crap it should be obvious that GW wo't change but I remain hopeful.

I've been looking at PP as an alternative TT game where the designers have made a strong effort in balancing the rules and factions. It doesn't look like the game has suffered for it in a creative-sense, either. Everybody wins - serious and casual gamers alike.

Dungeon_Lawyer
04-07-2010, 14:06
Fixed that for ya. The idea that 7th edition involved any "tactics" other than a prolonged game of chicken to get in on the flanks makes me laugh. 8th edition makes you take risks, keeps flank charges important while allowing other methods to work, increases the power of combined charges, and prevents single overpowered monsters/heroes from cracking units by themselves.

It's a common thread for the most prominent 8th edition haters to make themselves out as oppressed tactical geniuses lamenting the dumbing-down of their beloved ultra-tactical wargame. Frankly I find the whole thing a bit silly and patronizing. Pretending that winning a game of 7th had more to do with tactics than with spell spam, huge monsters, killy characters and death stars is quite a feat of selective memory.


Matt its ok, dont take it personally. But you are probably the worst game designer in history. 8th is not a great leap forward by any means its got a ton of problems-roughly a quarter of the community see it already.

Its only a matter of time till people really start to break this edition

Angelust
04-07-2010, 14:27
You specifically belittled Sygerrick's and riotknights' lengthier statements, as well as my own short one concurring. I take it you then are the arbiter of what constitutes a "contribution" to the debate? Any forum post stating agreement with a previous poster is now worthy denigration?



Fine, dislike 8E random charge distances all you want. But, again, random charge distances do not in of themselves constitute in any way, shape, or form, a "dumbing down" of the tactical element of the game. Many far more serious and tactically nuanced miniatures rules sets than WHFB include random movement/command factors to simulate the "friction of command". For some rulesets, it is more central to game play than combat resolution.

And the constant insistence that one is turned off by 8E because it is now a tactically inferior endeavor, and not simply a matter of taste, is condescending by implication to those who find 8E enjoyable.

Just a few comments on arguments like these:

1) The argument that "8th edition has uncertain charge distances. Game X, which requires more tactical acumen, has uncertain charge distances. Therefore, uncertain charge distances do not reduce the tactical aspect of play" is simply logically unsound. You need to prove that uncertain charge distances either do not affect the tactical aspect of the game, or improve it somehow.

Secondly, it is in no way condescending, AT ALL, to state that in one's own personal opinion, the game requires less tactics than it did in it's most recent rendition. It's a statement of judgment on a game system, not on the players. If he said, "people who like 7th edition more are tactically inferior, have less skill, enjoy a dumbed down game, etc", then you could call him condescending, as he's making a personal judgment regarding people, placing himself in a more highly laudable group. Simply saying he's condescending for disliking a ruleset that he deems "tactically" inferior to it's previous incarnation is just...well...condescending it seems.

Anyway, I'm personally not a fan of uncertain charge distances, but overall am liking the way 8th is balancing out. I think we'll need to see in 6 months though how the meta pans out...

chilledenuff
04-07-2010, 14:53
random charge distances have a huge bearing on the tactics of a game. In 7th you knew exactly how far you would charge and anyone who has played before will be able to testify to this will tell you that they knew (even with out premeasuring!) exactly where to stop outside of thier opponents charge range.
That situation is now gone. You have to use other tactics to protect yourself from being charged as you prepare to charge now. This can be done in many ways, my suggestion though is for units to support each other. The actual random distance charged is just maths, some one, somewhere has almost certainly already listed the % chance of charging distances being made online.
I think a lot of people (opinion!) are begrudging the fact that their elite cavalry units can no longer plough through infantry blocks without risk anymore and that is what they actually don't like. time for a different strategy people.

chamelion 6
04-07-2010, 15:02
You are entitled to ranting, chamelion. But simultanously, you are also obliged to understand that you are on one of the fringes of the debate, whereas I, at least the way I perceive myself, is much more in the middle. Perhaps the GW designers are like you and want their games to be like that. In that case, have fun with their games. As I wrote, I will not be joining you, and. Pen and paper Roleplaying games with a good GM will always be my outlet for pure "fluff" gaming in any setting. As I wrote, however, I have no problem with playing at less than my best in tourneys - fully comprehending that I will no win that tourney, and fully at peace with it.

You perception of the tournament athmosphere, I'd forward, is exactly that - a perception. Here is one of my observations based on my perception: I have been to highly competitive tournaments, games and sports alike, where fun most certainly was at the center of the experience. What all those had in common was that the rules were clearly written and well defined. I have also been to complete clusterf***s that were marred by rules lawyering and dodgy interpretations and practices - in what was publicised as a "friendly" environment. Badly written, messy systems create such situations habitually and demand that the TOs try to rectify the situation.

I entirely disagree with your idea of balance (and in my implication, properly and clearly written rules) being incompatible with creativity and flexibility. I do, however, believe that such ideas are frequently put forward by lazy game designers who do not have the capacity or the interest to combine the two.

I don't percieve you as being in the middle, your comments don't reflect that, you're closer to the opposite end of the scale from me. The folks in the middle are largely ignoring the debate and playing the game. Thae fact that your so unhappy with the changing tide that you'd rather quit than try to make it work points to that. There's nothing wrong with that, that's just where we fit in. And IO see no way anydesigner is going to make a game that's going to please both of us. We want exactly the opposite.

My perception of the tournament atmosphere is based on a year and a half worth of games and enjoying each one less than the previous. It's based on the single-mindedness of the process. Even when there wasn't a breakdown in the rules it was just plain boring and uneventful. And when gamers came together the conversation always was little more than dry discussions of game mechanics and balance. 5th WFB was the most unbalanced of them all and we never had a single problem until the "competitive" ideology too root.

Pitched battle after pitched battle with players agonizing over deployment, only to agonize and argue over every fraction of an inch of the board. And after all this tedious drama, the game was usually decided by the application of a couple of modifiers and a key unit breaking. Little combat, little fantasy. The problem with the tournament / competitive mindset is single minded focus on a single goal to the exclusion of all else.

The only way to really have fun in that environment is to enjoy the competition. All of the arguments so far have see the debate through exactly that lens. "I've had fun at tournaments so you would to." The failure of that argument is that it presumes we have fun doing the same thing and dislike the same thing, only you realize the issues and I don't. I honestly have no interest in ever playing a pitched battle on a barren table top again. No matter how good the competition that kind of game was sheer drudgery. And every attempt I made at making the game interesting from my point of view was met with, "Terrain just gets in the way of the game and slows it down."

When I left I didn't go out with a lot of "GW will rue the day..." drama. I simply realized that the kind of games I wanted to play were out of style, but I tried to make it work first. I even tried to find like minded folks to play with but the culture at the time drove most of them off and all anybody wanted to really do was test their new list and strategy for the next tournament.

It wasn't the rules I hated so much as the culture that grew up around them. And while not everyone was hostile and unpleasant to game against, there was a disproportionate number of gamers whose ego became a nasty, smelling stain on the whole thing.

For me, and I emphasize the "for me," the whole 6th / 7th era was just a dismal dark period in the hobby.

Skyth
04-07-2010, 15:28
...Tournaments are bad...

The Tournament environment has nothing to do with the discussion. What was being talked about was having a tightly written rule system. That benefits the casual gamer and the competetive gamer. GW has never favored the competetive gamer as they have never written a well thought out rule set.

Balance and clear rules in the base rules is a good thing. If you want unbalanced scenarios, nothing is stopping you from creating your own (Give the other player 50% more points, etc).

freddieyu
04-07-2010, 15:35
I don't percieve you as being in the middle, your comments don't reflect that, you're closer to the opposite end of the scale from me. The folks in the middle are largely ignoring the debate and playing the game. Thae fact that your so unhappy with the changing tide that you'd rather quit than try to make it work points to that. There's nothing wrong with that, that's just where we fit in. And IO see no way anydesigner is going to make a game that's going to please both of us. We want exactly the opposite.

My perception of the tournament atmosphere is based on a year and a half worth of games and enjoying each one less than the previous. It's based on the single-mindedness of the process. Even when there wasn't a breakdown in the rules it was just plain boring and uneventful. And when gamers came together the conversation always was little more than dry discussions of game mechanics and balance. 5th WFB was the most unbalanced of them all and we never had a single problem until the "competitive" ideology too root.

Pitched battle after pitched battle with players agonizing over deployment, only to agonize and argue over every fraction of an inch of the board. And after all this tedious drama, the game was usually decided by the application of a couple of modifiers and a key unit breaking. Little combat, little fantasy. The problem with the tournament / competitive mindset is single minded focus on a single goal to the exclusion of all else.

The only way to really have fun in that environment is to enjoy the competition. All of the arguments so far have see the debate through exactly that lens. "I've had fun at tournaments so you would to." The failure of that argument is that it presumes we have fun doing the same thing and dislike the same thing, only you realize the issues and I don't. I honestly have no interest in ever playing a pitched battle on a barren table top again. No matter how good the competition that kind of game was sheer drudgery. And every attempt I made at making the game interesting from my point of view was met with, "Terrain just gets in the way of the game and slows it down."

When I left I didn't go out with a lot of "GW will rue the day..." drama. I simply realized that the kind of games I wanted to play were out of style, but I tried to make it work first. I even tried to find like minded folks to play with but the culture at the time drove most of them off and all anybody wanted to really do was test their new list and strategy for the next tournament.

It wasn't the rules I hated so much as the culture that grew up around them. And while not everyone was hostile and unpleasant to game against, there was a disproportionate number of gamers whose ego became a nasty, smelling stain on the whole thing.

For me, and I emphasize the "for me," the whole 6th / 7th era was just a dismal dark period in the hobby.

Actually the days of 6th ed were not bad, since the environment was much more balanced in that any army had a fighting chance to win....definitely 6th ed was better than 5th, when it was just chaos or the lizards that won, and comp had to be introduced where each character could only get 1 magic item...

The 6th/7th era DID get stale though, worsened by the imbalance GW did by bringing in the unholy 3 army books in 7th ed....and the situation you described above...

Let us see where 8th will take us..and I hope the enthusiasm generated this early will carry through over time...

Dungeon_Lawyer
04-07-2010, 16:03
random charge distances have a huge bearing on the tactics of a game. In 7th you knew exactly how far you would charge and anyone who has played before will be able to testify to this will tell you that they knew (even with out premeasuring!) exactly where to stop outside of thier opponents charge range.
That situation is now gone. You have to use other tactics to protect yourself from being charged as you prepare to charge now. This can be done in many ways, my suggestion though is for units to support each other. The actual random distance charged is just maths, some one, somewhere has almost certainly already listed the % chance of charging distances being made online.
I think a lot of people (opinion!) are begrudging the fact that their elite cavalry units can no longer plough through infantry blocks without risk anymore and that is what they actually don't like. time for a different strategy people.

Respectfully, methinks you miss an important fact: in 8th edition, from what I have seen thus far, 80%+ of the time charges mean nothing. Thus the tactics needed to get a charge off or protect against one simply dont carry the same urgency that they once did.

The most important "tactic" of all in 8th? Kill the enemy bsb. That dude needs to be deader than fried chicken, the sooner the better.

Sygerrik
04-07-2010, 16:15
It's well and good to claim that in your opinion, 7th was more tactical, but until you bring up concrete examples, I am not obligated to cede the point. I brought up several to support my point. To restate:
1) The fact that large killy monsters can no longer break ranks prevents the kind of Bloodthirster/Dragon point-and-click that is the bottom of the tactical barrel
2) The decrease in importance of SCR (no outnumbering, and each side is likely to get many more kills since they can't be wiped out and unable to strike back)
3) Elements of uncertainty in movement and magic mean that a certain degree of risk is called for, and risk is the hallmark of great tactics. Being able to put together a jigsaw puzzle is not tactical. Being able to react to a fluid situation, adapt a plan (which, as we all know, never survives contact with the enemy), and minimize the potential impact of bad luck, is what real tactics are.

I liked 7th edition Warhammer a bit. But when I wanted a really tactical wargame, I played Warmachine or Hordes, because 7th was, barring freakish chance, usually won in the "write lists" phase. Eighth is not.

I now encourage you write up "tactical" aspects of 7th that have been lost. Difficulty? The ability to accurate gauge distance is not a "tactic." It is a "skill," but it's a skill that can be severely hampered by myopia or genetics (some people just have a hard time accurately estimating difference), and one that can be only developed so far.

chamelion 6
04-07-2010, 16:30
The Tournament environment has nothing to do with the discussion. What was being talked about was having a tightly written rule system. That benefits the casual gamer and the competetive gamer. GW has never favored the competetive gamer as they have never written a well thought out rule set.

Balance and clear rules in the base rules is a good thing. If you want unbalanced scenarios, nothing is stopping you from creating your own (Give the other player 50% more points, etc).

I think it has everything to do with it. It completely permiated the whole WFB environment. None of the problems with 6th and 7th were there in 5th and it was a far and away more unbalanced system. It had no balance at all.

You're right that the rules themselves didn't kill it. It was the singular obsession with competition and balance that did. All anybody wanted to do was playtest lists. The rules simply attracted more of those kinds of gamers. Were it not for the fact that nobody was interested in anything else I would have found my groupe of players and soldiered on.

I liked 5th much better than 6th. The issues in 5th were minor and mostly revolved around having to buy too many suppliments to support the basic rules... It just goes to illustrate balanced rules are not the most important thing to everyone. People didn't really need or expect balance. It was that obsession that lead to all the endless debates over balance and mechanics.



Actually the days of 6th ed were not bad, since the environment was much more balanced in that any army had a fighting chance to win....definitely 6th ed was better than 5th, when it was just chaos or the lizards that won, and comp had to be introduced where each character could only get 1 magic item...

The 6th/7th era DID get stale though, worsened by the imbalance GW did by bringing in the unholy 3 army books in 7th ed....and the situation you described above...

Let us see where 8th will take us..and I hope the enthusiasm generated this early will carry through over time...

No the first few games I played of 6th were ok, but they were really extensions of things we were doing in 5th. But like I said, it wasn't the rules I hated so much as the culture. It just wasn't for me.

Again all this is how I feel and how it affected me. Not some statement of universal truth.

riotknight
04-07-2010, 17:24
Hm, well I guess I'll add one more thing. 5 Games is no where NEAR enough games to judge an entire system thats replacing one from 4+ years ago.

For instance, playing 8th with my OnG is far different than playing 8th with my WoC. And even more different from that was playing with my HE Teclis list (Which was absolutely retarded in terms of destructiveness). Playing 5 games with each of them would probably begin to give me an idea of 8th Ed as a competitive game.

Post again after 50-100 games of Eighth Edition, I will to and we can compare notes!

Kaptajn_Congoboy
04-07-2010, 22:01
Which is of course why most people are awaiting the FAQs and the next 6 months of play. But there is no shame in reading up on people's perception of the meta.


I don't percieve you as being in the middle, your comments don't reflect that, you're closer to the opposite end of the scale from me.

Your posts seem to be based less on what people actually write and more on your personal mental image of the people you write. I have stated that I frequently have played in tournaments with less than optimized lists - for fun. How that puts me as some sort of hyper-competitive player, I have no idea.

stashman
04-07-2010, 23:14
Overall I don't like it, and considering I just finished off building an army ready for 8th I have to say i'm a tad annoyed at how simplistic it seems and how unrewarding for those who have an ounce of tactical skill.

I gave up on 7th edition half way through and looks like I will be doing the same on this edition.


Chess is pure tactical, dice games are not.

Nocculum
04-07-2010, 23:24
Charges are still important.

+1 CR for the charging unit for one.

Having control over the enemy is another.

Them fleeing from you and overrun is a third.

Getting to sing 'Who Let the Dogs Out' when you do so is a fourth.

Petey
04-07-2010, 23:34
@ stashman. Strategy is what troops you bring, Tactics is how you use them. In the case of warhammer. Sorry to nit pick, but strategy is an old word, Strategy, a word of military origin, refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. In military usage strategy is distinct from tactics, which are concerned with the conduct of an engagement, while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. How a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: the terms and conditions that it is fought on and whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy, which is part of the four levels of warfare: political goals or grand strategy, strategy, operations, and tactics.

Put another way, strategy is the martial art you ve studied, tactics are the moves from that style you use in a fight. There are plenty of tactics in Warhammer.

stashman
04-07-2010, 23:45
Hmmm... What I was trying to say in my post with a few words is that when dices are included, it can be really random, chess can't.

WFB is a dice game.


But I think that all 7th edition gamers and editions before have to RE-THINK how to play the game, it's not as it was, it's very diffrent.

Magic can blow units apart - know when to dispel or not

Mass infantery is great - redo your infantery units

Cavalry is supporting infantery - start to use cavalry diffrent from 7th

Charging is random - but how random is it??? 2d6+4 = around 11" and thats not so random. Place your units diffrent and have some units taking heat.

Scenarios - seems alot more fun than just a pitched battle

Petey
04-07-2010, 23:52
Sure, all that I can agree with.

Sparowl
04-07-2010, 23:52
PS saurus warriors holding a building don't really help your opponent win anymore in pitched battles, as table quarters are meaningless, so it won't be a big deal often.

We were playing watchtower scenario. Having my Saurus warriors in the building turn 2 meant that he probably wasn't going to win that game. Especially with my Slann decimating his army and buffing the Saurus warriors (they were T8 most of the game).


random charge distances have a huge bearing on the tactics of a game. In 7th you knew exactly how far you would charge and anyone who has played before will be able to testify to this will tell you that they knew (even with out premeasuring!) exactly where to stop outside of their opponents charge range.

I often find it amazing how far off people's estimates of distance can be. And I'm talking about people who play at least 2 or 3 games a week. I declared a charge against a fleeing unit with a stegadon a few months back, and my opponent refused to declare flee, because he thought I was declaring a charge that was too far outside of the stegadon's range. He thought I was a solid 16 inches away, I thought I was 10.

Turned out I was 13 and 1/2. He fled with the unit, because he said that was a reasonable distance for me to misjudge, ignoring the fact that he was off by a long ways with his estimate.

The point of the ancedote is that I feel that guesstimating ranges was an important part of 6/7th, and not one everyone was perfect at.



1) The fact that large killy monsters can no longer break ranks prevents the kind of Bloodthirster/Dragon point-and-click that is the bottom of the tactical barrel
2) The decrease in importance of SCR (no outnumbering, and each side is likely to get many more kills since they can't be wiped out and unable to strike back)
3) Elements of uncertainty in movement and magic mean that a certain degree of risk is called for, and risk is the hallmark of great tactics. Being able to put together a jigsaw puzzle is not tactical. Being able to react to a fluid situation, adapt a plan (which, as we all know, never survives contact with the enemy), and minimize the potential impact of bad luck, is what real tactics are.

1.) A good fix. Now most monsters just kill the unit quickly due to the addition of thunderstomp. I agree with this change. Reduction in tactics? Not so much.
2.) A good fix as well. Outnumbering now becomes steadfast for outranking, and the thing about more attacks and more kills makes SCR less important. I like this change, and think it adds a little more tactics to the game, since charging doesn't mean the be-all-end-all.
3.) And here's my problem. With the above changes, that fix monsters, cavalry, and heavy hitting infantry, why do we need random distances? Surely setting up outside of range of a unit, or moving into it, is more of a tactical decision then setting up at what might be their charge range, with a good roll.

And magic doesn't feel uncertain to me. It feels ridiculously powerful.


I think it has everything to do with it. It completely permiated the whole WFB environment. None of the problems with 6th and 7th were there in 5th and it was a far and away more unbalanced system. It had no balance at all.

You're right that the rules themselves didn't kill it. It was the singular obsession with competition and balance that did. All anybody wanted to do was playtest lists.

I disagree. I feel that the core rules for 6th and 7th were mostly good (and most are still in 8th). However, the problem was the army books specifically using the core rules in the most broken way possible. The Big Three broke the game by taking the core rules to a ridiculous extreme.

And you are correct. A lot of people did want to playtest lists for 6th and 7th. However, GW didn't want anyone to playtest it, and now no one does. It has been a long time since GW had playtesters. Even longer since they had playtesters they listened to. And so we got broken books.

8th has changes to the rules to fix some of the problems that those books really caused. And most are good, I think. I just have problems with a specific few.

chamelion 6
05-07-2010, 00:20
Which is of course why most people are awaiting the FAQs and the next 6 months of play. But there is no shame in reading up on people's perception of the meta.



Your posts seem to be based less on what people actually write and more on your personal mental image of the people you write. I have stated that I frequently have played in tournaments with less than optimized lists - for fun. How that puts me as some sort of hyper-competitive player, I have no idea.

It's not about playing in tournaments with strong lists versus softer lists. That actually has nothing to do with it. And I didn't make any refrence to you as hyper-competative. I take you at your word you are not. It's not how hard or merciless you approach the game.

It's that on some level it still boils down to a contest.

In sitting down to game, we pull out or lists and minis, carefully place a couple of peices of terrain around the board for flavor. then take turns carrefull placing our minis on the table. First you, then me, then you and so on.... Then one of us moves first depending on who the dice decided...

By this point in our game, I'm already not really having much fun... It's just like the game I just played, and the one before that, and the one before that and so on, and so on.......... By this point I really don't care who wins, I'm already bored and unattached. I can pretty much predict the rest of the game from here on out. It's like watching a rerun on TV.

I quit playing because that kind of setting, the whole approach, for me, was just bland and uninteresting. Better written rules and more balance isn't going to save it. There's nothing short of writing this kind of game out of the system that a game designer can do to make me happy. Which is what they pretty much did.

And that's why I look forward to the new game, and you see it as having killed all the fun. We are completely and fundamentally on two opposite ends of the scale.

Not a personal thing, not a powergamer thing... It's a preference thing. I'm not trying to define you as a gamer because that's not so important really. Except I feel you don't really understand why I didn't like 6th and 7th edition.

I opologize if you feel I tried to pidgeon hole yoy as a gamer. Wasn't my intent.

chamelion 6
05-07-2010, 00:34
I disagree. I feel that the core rules for 6th and 7th were mostly good (and most are still in 8th). However, the problem was the army books specifically using the core rules in the most broken way possible. The Big Three broke the game by taking the core rules to a ridiculous extreme.

And you are correct. A lot of people did want to playtest lists for 6th and 7th. However, GW didn't want anyone to playtest it, and now no one does. It has been a long time since GW had playtesters. Even longer since they had playtesters they listened to. And so we got broken books.

8th has changes to the rules to fix some of the problems that those books really caused. And most are good, I think. I just have problems with a specific few.

I never really had a problem with the rules themselves. Not even with 5th and that's still my preference for WFB. I never had a problem with the balance of the books either. In my view game balance was never a part of the game anyway.

During the 6th / 7th era all the gamers I knew wanted to do was try out their new list or new tweak to their list. It was endless stream of sterile pitched battles after another. The objective never swayed, you kill me or I kill you. That's what turned me off.

Gimmie the days of tables full of terrain, no deployment rules and 500 points of Chaos versus 3000 pints of Orks... I gotta survive, what... 5 turns. Bring it on, now you got my attention.

:)

indytims
05-07-2010, 04:23
I saw one of the worse games I have ever seen played where an experienced gamer with a beautifully painted/converted/themed AND well balanced army got absolutely thrashed by someone who looked like they had just scraped together all the models in their collection. It didn't matter what the veteran player did against the other gamer every time he tried something it never went his way. Powerful flank charges ended in stalemate, redirects didn't really give much of a benefit, etc. In the end I watched in horror as magic took its toll on his army (he was losing 1/2 to 2/3 of a unit each turn to some spells). He gave up in turn 5 with nothing but a hydra and a cold one chariot left! Whereas the other gamer had the best part of his army still on the table.


So, are you suggesting the guy with the beautifully painted/converted/themed army piloted by the veteran gamer should have won... "just because"?

Sometimes games like this happen. Sometimes you DO lose a game by one or two bad dice-rolls - whether it's in the magic or combat phase is irrelevant. Sometimes you'll lose to some guy who scraped his army together and sometimes you'll lose to a guy who has a LOT less experience than you do. It happens.

And no, just because someone is a 'veteran' with a nicely painted army does NOT mean they should (or will) win every game. That's just absurd. All things being equal, the act of rolling dice gives lesser-skilled players a chance to win. That's the way it's ALWAYS BEEN! :)

I'd like to see those two players you describe play a couple more games together. If the veteran you described is such a good player, he'll adjust accordingly (list, tactics, etc) to give himself a better chance to win based on the rules governing the game in 8th.

Regarding the Original Post - While I don't agree with most of it, it was well-written and doesn't come across to me as whining. The poster played 5 solid games and has formed an opinion based on experience. Nothin' wrong with that. :)

riotknight
05-07-2010, 04:38
SNIP

The poster played 5 solid games and has formed an opinion based on experience. Nothin' wrong with that. :)

Except 5 games is no where near enough experience to have a full understanding of this edition.

Did I immediatly pick up a controller and rock face in Street Fighter II? No, it took hours(hundreds) of playing and learning to get used to the nuances and strategies involved in the game. Just because its a Dice/Tabletop game doesn't remove that fact :D

Kaptajn_Congoboy
05-07-2010, 05:55
It's that on some level it still boils down to a contest.


Erm....it is a game? It was a game in every edition. The object of a game is to win. The point of a game is to have fun. With just the fun part, we could as well be playing army men with Calvinball rules...Herohammer's character loadout was all about winning, about the contest.

From your description, it seems your local meta and the changed environment of your local scene was more what drove you away from 6th than anything else. After I quit, I gave my old armies away to the younger brothers of my friends. Since my local scene disintegrated as an organized play operation, they just played in our basements well into 6th edition (after that I ceased following them), but in a manner I guess would be to your liking. It was quite possible to play 6th/7th in the manner I believe - from your posts - you prefer. And I suspect that in half a year, when the meta has settled, all the exploits and all the powergaming will still be there in 8th edition, for those who stay in.

Ozorik
05-07-2010, 06:27
Except 5 games is no where near enough experience to have a full understanding of this edition.

Why would you need to have a full understanding of something to know if you will like it or not? 5 games are more than enough to have a very good understanding of how the rules flow and interact on a general level.


By this point in our game, I'm already not really having much fun... It's just like the game I just played, and the one before that, and the one before that and so on, and so on..........

I don't understand how this is any different in 8th.

chamelion 6
05-07-2010, 06:48
Erm....it is a game? It was a game in every edition. The object of a game is to win. The point of a game is to have fun. With just the fun part, we could as well be playing army men with Calvinball rules...Herohammer's character loadout was all about winning, about the contest.

From your description, it seems your local meta and the changed environment of your local scene was more what drove you away from 6th than anything else. After I quit, I gave my old armies away to the younger brothers of my friends. Since my local scene disintegrated as an organized play operation, they just played in our basements well into 6th edition (after that I ceased following them), but in a manner I guess would be to your liking. It was quite possible to play 6th/7th in the manner I believe - from your posts - you prefer. And I suspect that in half a year, when the meta has settled, all the exploits and all the powergaming will still be there in 8th edition, for those who stay in.

Yeah... That's about the way it happened. I never really had a problem with the rules themselves. But the competition thing just setteled everything into a singular kind of game that I got quickly tired of.

As for the contest... That's true but it's less a contest between you and I and more a contest of my ingenuity and ability in rising to the challenges set in front of me. Like the outnumbered / survival scenario. The games I really enjoyed looked little like a balanced sport. They were more often wildly unbalanced and the objective was seldom to kill the other army. We rarely used victory points because the challenge was usually achieved or not. Often we'd play a scenario several times, trading sides, to see who could acomplish the task best. There was competition but it was a very different kind.

I found that kind of game far more challenging that a straight up scrap. That was fun once in a while, but got old if over done. We did carry on with 6th edition for a brief time but most people I know got caught up in the "competition" aspects. I tried to get into it and just couldn't find the interest. The guys I knew all eventually hung up their armies too and the whole warhammer scene here is just non existant at the moment. With the new edition people are blowing the dust off their old stuff and getting excited again. That has me hopeful.

But you're right. The rules didn't put me off it so much as it was I just didn't fit in the culture that surrounded them. I kind of see that being what 8th is all about. They are attempting to force a shift in the culture back to the kind of atmosphere surrounding 5th. And that appeals to me.

But it's really going to cause problems for those that don't like that approach because I see balance getting tossed out the window, or at least taking a back seat to other aspects of the game.



I don't understand how this is any different in 8th.

Because it's not really the game mechanics that are the problem. It's the nature of the game itself. See above. That kind of game gets repetative really fast and the only real thrill is beating the other person. But the mental and problem solving challenges are minimal. It's just a rehash of the same problem. No suprise, no need to rethink and reapproach.

Playing a game that forces me to acomplish the (seeming) impossible is more rewarding. Of course the game is balanced in other subtle ways. A skilled player knows how to use terrain effectively and a lot of terrain favors a smaller mobile force. It's amazing how unbalanced a game can be and still be challenging for both players if the terrain is well thought out. Other scenarios are about avoiding conbat, challenging a player to get as many units off the board as possible. Other games are about tracking down and killing a specific model. Fighting little combats all over the board just bog you down so the challenge is picking your fights to draw out your objective.

These kinds of games force you into different modes of tactical and strategic thinking. And it negates the value of a min /max list because in some games your going to have a whole bunch of stuff that does nothing. For instance a game with lots of swamp that slows cav and heavy infantry but not smaller lighter troops and your objective is to move across thetable and take and hold a point.... You get the idea. There's always a way for a creative scenario designer to put a power lister in their place. If you approache it right every game will be radiclly different that the last and require a different approach. That environment forces you to think on your feet and adapt at every turn of every game. That's why I say, the new game will put a premium on abstract thinking more than linear thinking.

Assuming it's played as it's intended.

Lord Solar Plexus
05-07-2010, 07:19
Except 5 games is no where near enough experience to have a full understanding of this edition.

Did I immediatly pick up a controller and rock face in Street Fighter II? No, it took hours(hundreds) of playing and learning to get used to the nuances and strategies involved in the game. Just because its a Dice/Tabletop game doesn't remove that fact :D

You are overly cautious. Five games and some reading on the net are plenty of experience and info to form an opinion. It simply doesn't matter at all if someone hasn't caught on to each and every single little nuance. People don't do that after a hundred games. I'm pretty certain you had formed an opinion about SF II after two hours already.

Whether you are good or bad at it is something else entirely.

Ozorik
05-07-2010, 07:25
That kind of game gets repetative really fast and the only real thrill is beating the other person. But the mental and problem solving challenges are minimal. It's just a rehash of the same problem. No suprise, no need to rethink and reapproach

How is this this any different in 8th? I really don't understand where you are coming from.

chamelion 6
05-07-2010, 07:43
How is this this any different in 8th? I really don't understand where you are coming from.

Because in a well designed scenario/ narrative game the competition isn't really against the other person. Imagine a game like this....

You get 500 points of watever army... no limit on character or magic. Tool him up like you want.... Power list him as hard as you want and give him the stoutest tooled up body guard you can muster within that 5oo points.

You have a board with more terrain than you've probably ever played with in a pitched battle. Start anywhere you want....

Now it gets fun... I got 3 players each with 1500 points entering from 3 separate table sides and they have one task... Kick your butt.

All you gotta do to win is be alive at the bottom turn 5... Don't you think that's a lot tougher than an evenly matched combat? You let your stuff get bogged down in combat too soon and you get swamped. Make the wrong move and you get surrounded. But you can't avoid them all forever so you're gonna have to fight someone sooner or later....

You learn a different way to fight. You learn to be flexible and think on your feet. You want bragging rights? Take that one on.

That's what I'm talking about.

CauCaSus
05-07-2010, 11:17
Then play games like that, don't whine about 8th edition, it has nothing to do with it. Or play a new game, I dunno.

chamelion 6
05-07-2010, 14:32
Then play games like that, don't whine about 8th edition, it has nothing to do with it. Or play a new game, I dunno.

Did I miss something? :confused:

Lord Solar Plexus
05-07-2010, 14:34
Whom were you talking to, CauCaSus? There hasn't been much whining lately.

Avian
05-07-2010, 15:34
Did I miss something? :confused:
If you don't like the CONCEPT of a game, a discussion about the relative merits of different editions of that game might not be your thing. ;)

Rogue
05-07-2010, 15:50
Moving is very close to the still current rules. Nothing in there has any bearing on tactics or skill or even fun. Charging is something entirely different. No idea what that other thread may have to do with this.

I count five non compulsive manuvers that you could do in the 7th edition, reforming, turning, marching, charging, wheeling. Last time that I read the book, turning has been removed completely. (I dont count the half turn shuffles as turning) Marching requires a leadership test in order to move, and charging requires a random dice move along with allowing a premeasure. How can you say with a straight face that movement is "very close to the still current rules," when two of the five have siginficantly changed and one has been removed entirely?

Rogue
05-07-2010, 16:03
(and dwarves are brutal with their extra dice now)

Perhaps I missed it, but the extra dice for dwarves are eliminated in this current edition. That rule was in the BRB in the 7th, and the only thing that Dwarves get is a +2 to the dispell roll in the 8th.

Falkman
05-07-2010, 16:49
I count five non compulsive manuvers that you could do in the 7th edition, reforming, turning, marching, charging, wheeling. Last time that I read the book, turning has been removed completely. (I dont count the half turn shuffles as turning) Marching requires a leadership test in order to move, and charging requires a random dice move along with allowing a premeasure. How can you say with a straight face that movement is "very close to the still current rules," when two of the five have siginficantly changed and one has been removed entirely?
Pretty much the only two uses of the Turn manouvre in 7th ed was either to turn -> sidestep/backstep -> turn again, you can still get the same effect in 8th by side/backstepping.
The other common use of turning was to turn and then expand frontage, which is pretty much the same as the new Swift reform.
So no, there hasn't been great changes.
Also, you don't always need to test to march, only when you are being march-blocked.

Niibl
05-07-2010, 17:19
Personally I like the new concept although randomness could be a two edged sword.
I've been playing WH since the 2nd ed. and wheeling and turning etc. has allways been a major part of the game. I know and like the "feel" of maneuvering with your units into the perfect position etc. It just feels right.
Additionally there is 40k as a bad example of how it could end when removing the importance of movemement stats. So I get a typical "beware of the beginning" reaction when thinking about random moves.
The problem is that in the 7th this movement and positioning game was a very deciding and dominant factor. In addition to that it was skill based.
So, unless someone had a really bad day, the better player (with those skills) won.
From a competetive point of view that's ok. From a fun-for-both-sides view it is not.
A game is just too long to enjoy beeing slaughtered once you are found out of your depth in turn two.
On the other hand I have seen some very boring games of mikado-hammer due to both playes beeing very skilled vets with comparable armies.
I think the random charge range is a good solution to this problem.
Yes, it removes predictability and lessens the influence of skills which are game winning today (It could be one step too far. Maybe. We are going to find it out in a few months). But it improves the chances of a less skilled opponent to some degree.
A move from better player wins 95% of the time to better player wins 70% of the time. It might be unfair to the 95% players but it might be better for the game.
The chess-type of player (Orc-players who don't like the randomness of animosity etc.) might not be able to cope but others will simply hone others kills to improve their chance to win.
Well, I have not played the new ed. yet and leaving out maneuvering still feels wrong but I think I will get over it (I survived the loss of willpower as well:eek:).
My fears are more in the direction of endless, dull close combats of huge blocks of infantry.

willowdark
05-07-2010, 17:33
My fears are more in the direction of endless, dull close combats of huge blocks of infantry.

Bingo!

It's a shame that conventional wisdom has landed on random charges as the main complaint of 8th ed. I've never said that, personally.

My concern is that Steadfast, combined with Supportive Attacks and the difficulty in actually breaking ranks means that combat will no longer be as decisive as it was. What I see happening, and have heard it confirmed by a number of posts in these threads, is that 8th will be defined by large infantry blocks stumbling into each other and slap-fighting like girls until one unit is dead to a man.

It looks like a game of tarpit vs. tarpit.

The problem with rolling dice is that it will always fall on the side with the better stats. Sure, cheap hordes will have numbers, but cheap hordes always have poor equipment.

That's list-gaming at its worst. Games will always be dominated by the most point efficient troops in terms of stats and equipment, where protracted combat will lean towards higher toughness/better AS.

The reason why charging worked so well in 7th as a game dynamic is because stats and equipment alone weren't enough. You had to actually execute a successful charge to get the most out of them. If you got charged, more often than not you couldn't utilize your superior stats and equipment fully, and would break under the pressure.

That's what I think will dumb down the game. If protracted combats become the norm the army book disparity will be that much worse, because a lot of units are just not meant to take attacks back. High toughness + good AS will dominate all the timed, while fast will mean almost nothing when it used to be the key to winning against troops that were inherently better than you.

riotknight
05-07-2010, 17:37
Why would you need to have a full understanding of something to know if you will like it or not? 5 games are more than enough to have a very good understanding of how the rules flow and interact on a general level..

General Understanding a full comprehension of the game system are two completely different things. If you want to play with a general understanding of the rules thats fine, but that's still NOT enough to judge jury and execute an entirely new system. (Side: It may also have to do with the opponents you play as well and their grasp. Much like any researcher, you need much more data than the 10-15 hours 5 games would take.)


Five games and some reading on the net are plenty of experience and info to form an opinion.


I post here and read on the net, but reading on the net as a supplement to actually playing games is a poor replacement at best. If I based ANYTHING I do with regard to my hobby based on what i read here, I would have quit the game years ago because of how terrible it all seems.

Angelust
05-07-2010, 19:39
General Understanding a full comprehension of the game system are two completely different things. If you want to play with a general understanding of the rules thats fine, but that's still NOT enough to judge jury and execute an entirely new system. (Side: It may also have to do with the opponents you play as well and their grasp. Much like any researcher, you need much more data than the 10-15 hours 5 games would take.)




I post here and read on the net, but reading on the net as a supplement to actually playing games is a poor replacement at best. If I based ANYTHING I do with regard to my hobby based on what i read here, I would have quit the game years ago because of how terrible it all seems.

I think what he's trying to say is that 5 games plus gauging some critical reviews gives him enough data to decide whether HE will enjoy the game or not, and why those opinions seem valid. I think it was Athanasius who said, "I don't need to drink the whole ocean to know that it's salty."

Ozorik
05-07-2010, 19:46
General Understanding a full comprehension of the game system are two completely different things.

Indeed they are but you most definitely do not need a complete and indepth understanding of something to know if you will enjoy it or not. If you don't have a general understanding of a game system after one play through, especially if you are familiar with how that type of game works, then that game is extremely badly written and implemented.

enygma7
05-07-2010, 19:57
Bingo!
My concern is that Steadfast, combined with Supportive Attacks and the difficulty in actually breaking ranks means that combat will no longer be as decisive as it was. What I see happening, and have heard it confirmed by a number of posts in these threads, is that 8th will be defined by large infantry blocks stumbling into each other and slap-fighting like girls until one unit is dead to a man.


Only if both players max out on massive infantry units and use no tactics. Even in a clash between two large infantry blocks it usually won't be long before the losing side suffers enough casualties to lose steadfast.

If you want to destroy a large infantry unit quickly (in one round) you'll have to duel charge it with a large infantry unit of your own and something capable of causing enough casualties (elite infantry, chariots, cavalry) so that your infantry outrank them. Otherwise you'll just have to plan on spending a few rounds of combat breaking them down whilst protecting your flanks. Both these scenarios involve more tactics than 7th ed.

Finally, if someone really does take a massive unit of doom then they'll really suffer from some of the new magic and war machines. Internet forums always seems to take things to extremes - I saw lots of posts saying units had to be massive and then later others complaining new magic was too game breaking because it could wipe out their 600+pt unit with a single spell. Could it be you have to balance power with placing all your eggs in one basket?

Shrapnelsmile
05-07-2010, 20:07
Ahhh Whineseer, you never disappoint.


8th Edition is all about playing a FANTASY WAR GAME. With magic, and lots of chaos going on all around.

7th Was more like playing a game of chicken, who would blink first and fall for the inevitable bait/flee? Some armies did better than others when pulled out of position, but generally, nothing died until about turn 3 (especially if it was a non-shooting army like VC vs Khorne Daemons). And after 1-2 rounds of combat, it was usually clear who the winner was.

Now? We play a full 6 turns because every turn it could be a game changer.

Don't like it? Play 7th, or play risk. I play ultra-competitive WAAC by nature and I am SUPER happy with this new edition. why? because none of my old tricks work anymore! No more 5man units of Chaos Knights flanking and obliterating units on their own, No more daemons with 17PD and the ability to pump out more.

Adapt.

i only played 2 games of 7th, and watched a game of 8th, but i have to say Bravo to your response. You not only hit the nail on the head, you hit it with a Warhammer.

Bloodless
05-07-2010, 20:57
There are many complaints about the random charging... In my opinion it seems more realistic now. Remember that you are fighting on an ever changing BATTLE FIELD, where the ground may be pocked cannon holes or forests of poorly aimed arrow shafts. All things that may slightly slow an assault an lead to an unexpected failed charge. Battles usually don't happen on nicely mowed football fields.:wtf:

Artillary is powerful in the new addition, as it should be. If you don't like it, don't take max points for heroes and lords, try spending the points on some units that are designed to take out artillary "like gutter runners, chameleon skinks, ext...).

Magic has also become even powerful, however it is potentially more dangerous for the user.

I think people will complain about anything. This is not 7 Ed, it will take different tactics then you used in the past. My friends,it is time to move on and adapt to the new improve 8 Ed.

Shimmergloom
05-07-2010, 22:23
My concern is that Steadfast, combined with Supportive Attacks and the difficulty in actually breaking ranks means that combat will no longer be as decisive as it was.

I think the increase difficulty in breaking ranks is one of the few good things about the new rules.

The new combat rules are mostly favoring units that can kill lots of models. So kill CR is going to override Static CR by an even wider margin than it did in 7th.

So there's no reason to continue to allow ranks to be broken so easily by just 5 hounds or wolfriders or what have you.

The steadfast thing, I'll need to see in action more. But from my gut reaction, this seems to benefit cheap infantry the most. But they will still die in droves to elite infantry.

There's many things I dislike about the combat rules, but making it more difficult to break ranks is not one of them.


The reason why charging worked so well in 7th as a game dynamic is because stats and equipment alone weren't enough. You had to actually execute a successful charge to get the most out of them. If you got charged, more often than not you couldn't utilize your superior stats and equipment fully, and would break under the pressure.

I do agree with this. And this is one thing I do hate. I would prefer chargers striking first, less random charge ranges(a small amount of randomness would be better and make the game more balanced between the two mindsets) and having some change to let return attacks be affected some way by casualties.

Miredorf
05-07-2010, 22:44
To the naysayers....Adapt or die...no choice there....8th is here to stay.

Or quit. That is entirely your prerogative, while majority of us rejoice for the upcoming fun that is 8th ed

Yup, i have adapted editing most of the ruleset. Im happy that 8th edition had some very good points i could include and that the change forced me to further increase the deepness of the rules. You have no idea of how much fun we are getting in our gaming group thanks to the ''forced'' change 8th edition has been.

Playing a pick up game? Can still use these rules given by them, no biggie*.

UberBeast
06-07-2010, 03:34
Artillary is powerful in the new addition, as it should be. If you don't like it, don't take max points for heroes and lords, try spending the points on some units that are designed to take out artillary "like gutter runners, chameleon skinks, ext...).

I think certain artillery is better (anything with a template), however other artillery seems to have stayed mostly the same. Also, with combat being deadlier, and horde units being more competitive, it may be hard for non-template artillery to earn its point back before it has nothing to fire at.

willowdark
06-07-2010, 04:28
Only if both players max out on massive infantry units and use no tactics.

Could you elaborate on exactly what 'tactics' you're talking about. That's not sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious about what you mean.

It's true that the word 'tactics' gets thrown around a lot on the internet, and that a lot of people use it as a catch-all term that is often more vague and abstract than not. It's also true that people are aware of that and are extremely dismissive when people actually try to talk about 'tactics.'

When I say 'tactics' I'm specifically talking about 4 things: using terrain to deny and control lanes, which I'll get to in a moment, and after that, march blocking, redirecting and bait and flee.

Of the latter three, only bait and flee survives 8th in usability, though it is heavily nerfed by the return of charge redirecting. With march blocking, Ld tests means it will only be reliable against low leadership armies, and even then outside the General/BSB Ld blanket. And with M+2d6, even a march blocked unit will make it into combat too quickly to rely on march blocking to manipulate movement effectively.

With the free reform after winning combat, redirecting is dead as a tactic. Some people might herald that as the coming of a new age - I'm sure there are plenty ready to argue about how cheesy it is that a 50 pt eagle can disrupt an entire battleline - but I'm not one of them. I personally thought that that was a fantastic element of depth in "tactical" gameplay.

And with terrain effectively becoming open, though true there is a danger in entering it, I can no longer rely on terrain to carve the battlefield into lanes and use it to isolate enemy units and play divide and conquer. People complained that terrain in 7th was exclusive and generally didn't interact with the actual game. I disagree. I say it carved the field into lanes that a smart player could manipulate through 'tactics.' Not anymore.

So I'm genuinely curious what you mean by 'tactics.'

When I say units will be stumbling into each other, I mean it. With lax movement rules, M+2d6 charges, nerfed march blocking, open terrain, no redirecting and nerfed bait and flee, armies will essentially role into each other like two landslides meeting in a valley.

You say, "only if they don't use tactics." Well, my question to you is, "What tactics?"

Angelust
06-07-2010, 04:59
There are many complaints about the random charging... In my opinion it seems more realistic now. Remember that you are fighting on an ever changing BATTLE FIELD, where the ground may be pocked cannon holes or forests of poorly aimed arrow shafts. All things that may slightly slow an assault an lead to an unexpected failed charge. Battles usually don't happen on nicely mowed football fields.:wtf:



Let's not use realism to justify a mechanic like failed charges.

If me and 30 buddies are charging a bunch of rat-men 25 feet away, we're not going to suddenly stop and regroup 5 feet away from the enemy.

HeroFox
06-07-2010, 05:21
Let's not use realism to justify a mechanic like failed charges.

If me and 30 buddies are charging a bunch of rat-men 25 feet away, we're not going to suddenly stop and regroup 5 feet away from the enemy.

lol, how very true.

willowdark
06-07-2010, 05:27
Unless of course you're, yunno, exhausted.

Personally, I think it'd be more realistic for any unit failing a charge or charging farther than double their movement to lose something like d6 models, or d6+1 for every inch over double move.

Talking about what you and your buddies would do in a fight is all well and good, except you have to appreciate, at some point, how difficult it is to maintain a regimented formation that would receive a rank bonus. Why do you think Skirmishers don't get one?

Angelust
06-07-2010, 05:45
Willowdark: I'm no expert on historical warfare, so grain of salt on this, but it's hard for me to imagine any regimented formation halting a charge a couple meters in front of another regimented formation. Wouldn't they either fail to make a concerted charge from the beginning, or continue to make contact with the enemy despite difficulties?

Chamelion 6 could perhaps give some input here..

/offtopic

Kayosiv
06-07-2010, 07:31
You say, "only if they don't use tactics." Well, my question to you is, "What tactics?"

Put it better than I've been trying to the past few days. I'm also quite curious from people who have had more of a chance to play with the rulebook in front of them.

HeroFox
06-07-2010, 07:38
Put it better than I've been trying to the past few days. I'm also quite curious from people who have had more of a chance to play with the rulebook in front of them.

In the two games that I've played, I haven't really noticed a damn thing changing in tactics other than the lack of units whose sole purpose is for march block.

Almost all flyers are missing now since no one gives 2 hoots about march blocking.

Nocculum
06-07-2010, 08:01
Except Banner of Saemrath ;)

Lord Solar Plexus
06-07-2010, 09:03
Could you elaborate on exactly what 'tactics' you're talking about.

Naturally I cannot speak for enigma but tactics are all considerations and decisions that improve one's position and help achieve a goal.

Bait and flee indeed remains a useful tool. It will undoubtedly be less useful for armies who stretch to the horizon but that means that in order to employ it successfully, one has to make decisions about the exact positioning of supporting units. If those are behind rather than to the side, it could well lead to a situation that brings the opposing unit closer.

It is true that march blocking will only rarely be useful now. However, with the changes to shooting, I think this was necessary.

Yes, you can reform after winning (and in some instances, losing) a combat. I don't think that means less tactics. It mainly means a different, more delicate and much more complex approach if you wish to get a flank charge off. In addition, pinning units in place has become more easy for many armies, so that is an alternative.

Terrain does not become open, forests do. I realize this is not always the case but we have a good selection of TLoS- and/or movement blockers. Houses, walls, temples, ruins, towers can all fulfill some of the functions woods used to have, while rivers or other pieces can serve to partition the table top. I think it is just a question of how you approach this problem.

Spinocus
06-07-2010, 17:19
Willowdark: I'm no expert on historical warfare, so grain of salt on this, but it's hard for me to imagine any regimented formation halting a charge a couple meters in front of another regimented formation. Wouldn't they either fail to make a concerted charge from the beginning, or continue to make contact with the enemy despite difficulties?

Chamelion 6 could perhaps give some input here..

/offtopic

Yes, it seems totally ridiculous but failed charges happened all the time. Failure of command control and morale are the usual culprits. The famous Light Brigade charged... the wrong way and into the wrong enemy positions! Epic fail. Over the course of an entire day the Normans repeatedly charged the Saxon line at the battle of Hastings. I'm willing to bet there were many localized charges along the line that failed to reach the Saxon shield wall. Each failed group fleeing or falling back, regrouping and trying again.

The gunpowder era saw countless bayonet charges fail to reach the enemy line, not because the chargers necessarily feared being shot to death but out of fear of being bayoneted! The reverse held true as well, where regiments receiving a bayonet charge rarely stuck around long enough to match steel to steel. Rare was the case where two lines of bayonets met and clashed in an epic, cinema-style hand to hand struggle. Unlike their pre-gunpowder counterparts those soldiers were simply were not sufficiently trained or conditioned to deal with the rigors and stress of hand to hand combat. Given this you can see why soldiers could consistently fall short of a given objective.

Whatever the reason behind a failed charge (poor leadership, fatigue, confusion, low morale, etc.) you also need to keep in mind that we game in 'continuous time' and not 'real time'. We play in turns because it is the easiest, headache free mechanic that allows us to play without dealing with the complications associated with simultaneous movement, order cards or the like. If it helps try to think of a Warhammer battle as 6 snapshots in time, each representing 10 to 20 minutes (or whatever). So that unit which put forth a weak, failed charge effort? Think of that unit's command group in utter confusion over what to do or as either being countercharged at the moment where it ran out of steam. If the enemy unit it was supposed to charge fails to do anything in the subsequent player turn then it was either ordered to hold or didn't have the testicular fortitude required to countercharge!

Some Orc unit on the front line...
Champion: Ok, da boss said it's time ta go!
Orc 1: Wut we doin?
Orc 2: Dunno, we goin' ta get stuck in!
Unit: WAAAAAGGHH!
Orc unit starts the charge...
Standard Bearer: Wait, da boss said not ta get stuck in with 'ard men on horses!
Champion: Shaddup, da boss ain't here!
Standard Bearer: You shaddup!
Champion: You ain't 'ard enuff to tell me ta tell me wut to do!
Standard: I didnt tell ya, da boss told ya! I'm 'ard enuff and I'm smarta dan yoo!
Champion: Shaddup!
Unit slows down and comes to a stop 50 yards from a unit of knights as the command group breaks into argument...
Orc 1: Why we stoppin' chargin'?
Orc 2: We is 'ard enuff ta do dis!
Orc 3: Ya but we is unda orders. Wifout orders dere is kaos.
Orc 4: Chaos? I thought we fightin' da Empire?
Orc 5: Hey, doze 'ard men on horses is comin' dis way...
Orc 31 in the back rank: I'm 'ungry!
All Orcs: SHADDUP!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist. Slow day at work... ;)

Kaptajn_Congoboy
06-07-2010, 17:28
I really don't think using interpretations of historical warfare to try to support any rules position in WHFB. Even many historical miniatures games tend to mess this up. I remember an old argument in DBM over the Impetious rule on Knight stands, where one guy on the mailing list was defending it, citing a few dozen examples of medieval knights charging without orders. The counterreply from his opponent was extremely entertaining (but also superbly anal): over three hundred examples of cavalry charging without orders from the ancient, medieval and early modern periods, from all over the world (and none of the medieval examples from europe)... :D

[edit] It was pretty amusing (in that light), when I read Terry Gore's historical rules sets, to see all cavalry having a rule that amounted to the impetous rule...

Skyros
06-07-2010, 17:56
I largely have an issue with the character sniping aspect. Certain spells (Dweller Beneath, Final Transmutation, etc.) make it a single dice roll to kill what can be a 300-400 point character, who can be the general or hierophant of the army. And there is no defense against it besides trying to dispel it. No saves of any kind. No Look Out, Sir. For many wizards, Dweller kills on a 4+.


I agree with this point.

Overall I like 8th ed and consider it leaps and bounds ahead of 7th edition. I don't like how they neutered bound spells or WP/AL/TK magic, but this is one thing I noticed and disliked as well. But I don't like the way it's so easy to drop characters inside units with some of the magic spells.

You get a LOS roll against templates like pit of shades...shouldn't you also get one against spells that affect the whole unit, like dweller?

Otherwise, yes, it's very easy for Teclis to fall into a hole and there goes 500 points :p

And there's literally no defense against it if the opponent rolls an IF.

chamelion 6
06-07-2010, 18:11
I really don't think using interpretations of historical warfare to try to support any rules position in WHFB. Even many historical miniatures games tend to mess this up. I remember an old argument in DBM over the Impetious rule on Knight stands, where one guy on the mailing list was defending it, citing a few dozen examples of medieval knights charging without orders. The counterreply from his opponent was extremely entertaining (but also superbly anal): over three hundred examples of cavalry charging without orders from the ancient, medieval and early modern periods, from all over the world (and none of the medieval examples from europe)... :D

[edit] It was pretty amusing (in that light), when I read Terry Gore's historical rules sets, to see all cavalry having a rule that amounted to the impetous rule...

Yeah.... My backgound in all this is history and believe that an understanding of history can help sort out thing and help understand concepts in the rules to a greater depth but in the end you have to remember it ISN'T history. Some rules exist to add character and flavor to an army or unit, some just to keep the game flowing, still others because it makes the rules unique compared to competators sets....

Skyros
06-07-2010, 18:12
The other army was Empire with maxed out cannons, mortars and a hellblaster, supported by a wizard lord, another wizard, a general, a couple of big blocks of infantry with detachments, as well as heaps of crossbowmen.

The Dark Elf player had a balanced list with a block each of spearmen, executioners, witch elves, an MSU unit of corsairs, a chariot, hydra, couple of bolt throwers, a level 2 sorceress, highborn, dark riders, hag on couldron, shades, and some xbowmen.

I will point out that 'one of everything' lists are rarely competitively balanced, and often lack theme and focus. That looks to me like a 7th ed DE list went against an 8th ed Empire list. I don't know why you said the empire list was terrible or looked unplanned. I think it's a well planned list that is playing to the strengths of empire in 8th edition.

WarmbloodedLizard
06-07-2010, 18:46
the uber-spells are indeed stupid.
1. characters and champions should AT LEAST get a look-out-sir roll against anything but sniping (e.g hochland, spirit leech)
2. Ward and Regeneration saves shoud always be allowed., ESPECIALLY against spells that go against 20+ models and characters).
3. There shouldn't be that many unit killer spells. (especially not similar ones, e.g. initiative tests)

the synergy within a lore such as lore of life is ok, though I hate how strong all the spells are (in all the lores).

edit:
4. The miscast table is horribly designed. At least make those S10 hits S5 and allow all kinds of saves. That way a guard unit still has some chance to stay alive with armorsaves and/or T4.

Skyros
06-07-2010, 19:05
Why would you need to have a full understanding of something to know if you will like it or not? 5 games are more than enough to have a very good understanding of how the rules flow and interact on a general level.

I don't see how on earth this can be true. Most people that I see who have played 5 games are still making giant huge glaring mistakes, either understanding the 8th ed rules, or mistakenly using 7th ed rules still, or simply not really in the 8th ed mindset and still using tactics from 7th ed. For example..


Marching requires a leadership test in order to move


Is not correct. When people don't even know what the rules are it's impossible for them to have an understanding of how those rules affect the game, and whether it is a positive or negative effect.

I think it's a positive effect leading to a better game, but who knows? Perhaps there are some yet to be unlocked tactics that make the whole thing broken and abysmal.

L1qw1d
06-07-2010, 19:48
I think this is like the first shift in any major set up- I mean, seriously. 5 games is good to get a feel for the broad brushstrokes of playing- I mean it's worked for me being a nub and such- but like another person noted, it also requires adaptation, and allows a person a platform of things to alter.

I'm torn in the debate of "fun beer and pretzels" and actual "WAAC tactica lawyering". I think everyone is going to have a different OOC play style (not just how they move their armies, but the personality as well- I just met a new guy who, if you played him ACTS very WAAC, but handles mostly fluff builds... yeh. its weird) so I think thats not really a subject for this particular thread because that kind of thing goes beyond whichever edition it happens to be, or whatever army is out there (if that makes sense).

Some of the things I like, because I'm a cautious charger anyway, and was leaning to magic as a support. Kinda... Balanced Guerrilla(?) I DO like tactics, but I'll never be any great general. I think other things can be set as house rules for non- competition. Example: How many people want to roll to see if we all have Ghost Woods? Well, it will depend on the shop, or house. Everyone sets up their own home rules, and people haggle or go along with them. As long as you're ready to be surprised when tourney time comes, and find out there is now a boiling river in the arctic tundra, or the large climbing obstacle to your left to choose from, you'll be fine.

As for buildings, I have no clue. Impact or Template damages, I'd wager.

enygma7
06-07-2010, 21:21
Could you elaborate on exactly what 'tactics' you're talking about. That's not sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious about what you mean.


OK, first off I have to admit that, not having read through the rules in detail and benefited from the experience of playing with them and experimenting I don't know 100% - but then neither can anyone know they aren't there without doing the same :)

Anyway, I define tactics as "anything you do which benefits your position during the course of a game". Its a very practical view of tactics and I think thats helpful - all wargames are basically manipulation of probabilities, tactics is simply trying to manipulate those probabilities to your advantage. Some actions (like cheating and rules lawyering) are technically "tactics" but fall into the unacceptable conduct area :)

Some ideas about tactics in 8th:
-As mentioned in my previous post the combined charge looks to be king. By far the quickest way to break a large block of steadfast infantry will be to win the combat whilst having more ranks than the enemy - something which is best done by combining the force of a large block of your own cheap infantry and a more deadly unit to ensure you win the combat.
-Redirect may be gone (and I admit this combined with longer average charge ranges has given me a few reservations about 8th), but fleedirect still works (I assume) and redirect itself still has a use - the enemy either pursues/overruns or is left in a position you have decided and control, even if your opponent now gets to change the facing, opening them up to the type of combined charge described above.
-As also mentioned in my previous post, large blocks will be massively vulnerable to some of the new mega spells and template weapons. Not only can these be deployed when facing such units they also make the creation of massive units a significant risk in the first place which will probably mean its only worthwhile with cheap infantry.
-You still have the option of avoiding the massive infantry blocks (fleeing if you have to). Instead, concentrate on the support units. When they are isolated you'll be able to dictate the terms you engage with.
-Assassinating the general/BSB will now be a nasty tactic against many armies deploying massive hordes leaving them stubborn but with poor LD and no re-roll.
-Defeating one unit in a line allows you to reform ready to roll down the flank of the line.

I could go on but my dinner is burning :) I'll just say that in 7th warhammer was about movement and controlling your enemies movement. This will still be the case in 8th (I hope!) but movement will be more free and it will be harder (but still very possible) to control the enemies movement. It will (shock, horror!) quite possibly be a bit more like 40k! Now, a lot of the doom mongers have been saying this but where they are dead wrong is that they think 40k has no tactics. I've been playing wargames (and 40k) for 17 years and have found 5th ed 40k to be a highly tactical game with excellent correlation between player skill and winning (in fact, far more so than 7th WFB where list construction and army book power are massive factors). So 7th ed tactics may well be dead but others will arise!

Hope that answers your question and gives some food for debate. I *really* do have to go now as my dinner really is burning!

EDIT: ugh, sorry about the essay, that's what happens when I don't edit. Mmm, crispy food.

LuitpoldFrohlich
06-07-2010, 22:11
Well put.

7E tactics may or may not apply anymore, but new tactics will evolve.

The king is dead. Long live the king.

chamelion 6
06-07-2010, 22:31
Well put.

7E tactics may or may not apply anymore, but new tactics will evolve.

The king is dead. Long live the king.

Heh heh..... ;)

What he said.

:cool:

Sand
06-07-2010, 22:52
I will point out that 'one of everything' lists are rarely competitively balanced, and often lack theme and focus. That looks to me like a 7th ed DE list went against an 8th ed Empire list. I don't know why you said the empire list was terrible or looked unplanned. I think it's a well planned list that is playing to the strengths of empire in 8th edition.
Indeed. I thought it looked rather like I'd expect the new 8th ed. "cookie cutter" Empire list to look.

Cragum
06-07-2010, 23:01
to me on this whole new edition stuff, im finding that its just like we are being forced to use massive units just so that when we take damage we will end up only losing half a unit if we lose like nearly twenty what to me is plain outright stupid.

like the fact you make so much power dice it now takes armies such as ogres and non magic reliant armies are basically screwed utterly.

some things sound better and i dont just mean like better for me and certain armies but more realistic army choice and with percentages it can take away the epicly powered lords and heros and bearding up choice wise. but instead making a mass unit can ruin someone who has high pointed units who cant afford horde.

me and a mate had a game against a vampire counts army yesterday with 3 units of hordes, 1 being zombies, 1 being skeletons with a vampire and a vamp lord and 1 full of graveguard and 2 more vamps in 3k army. you just cant make an undead army die now because of so much regenerating models in the units.

tbh i think im going to try and stick to 7th edition while i play home games...

Falkman
06-07-2010, 23:03
you just cant make an undead army die now because of so much regenerating models in the units.
Just use the 10 pts Flaming banner...

Cragum
06-07-2010, 23:08
Just use the 10 pts Flaming banner...

nah i mean when they use dear old nagash to bring back the dead... with 4 vamps including 2 level 2s and a level 4 at least ( cant remember the others level), there isnt a problem of recasting it and beating it. sadly.

in fairness ive never felt VC's were a fair army having the whole ethereal rule meaning if you havent got magic then your screwed...

Maoriboy007
07-07-2010, 03:35
the uber-spells are indeed stupid.
1. characters and champions should AT LEAST get a look-out-sir roll against anything but sniping (e.g hochland, spirit leech)
2. Ward and Regeneration saves shoud always be allowed., ESPECIALLY against spells that go against 20+ models and characters).
3. There shouldn't be that many unit killer spells. (especially not similar ones, e.g. initiative tests).

Indeed, why they didn't learn their lesson from the abortion that is the gateway spell (even more devestating now) I'll never know.
Winning the game outright from a single spell is a stupid idea.


edit:
4. The miscast table is horribly designed. At least make those S10 hits S5 and allow all kinds of saves. That way a guard unit still has some chance to stay alive with armorsaves and/or T4.

The miscast table reflects the obcene power of the new spell lores, although pity anyone who can't take other spell lores. It does make items which affect miscasts even more broken than before though.


in fairness ive never felt VC's were a fair army having the whole ethereal rule meaning if you havent got magic then your screwed...

Although if you did have magic then they were screwed. Wraiths were the only real issue, they're not so good anymore.