PDA

View Full Version : 8th Edition: Warhammer for smart people?



Dokushin
04-07-2010, 19:04
So, let's talk about 'skill.' Yeah, I know, the word has been bandied about so often here that it's lost all meaning. But it's the quickest way to unearth this point.

What is skill? Well, it's the ability to, in a situation, determine and execute the action that provides the greatest potential benefit, right? It's the ability to do the right thing, where the 'right thing' is what brings you closer to winning (if we're talking about something that can be won). It's what lets one person win more often than another person.

A skilled player knows when to try certain tactics, when to go for risky moves, and how to avoid obvious and not-so-obvious blunders.

Ok, that's relatively easy. So -- can computers be skilled? There are chess programs out there that can beat just about everyone. Are they 'skilled' at chess? Computers have been unbeatable at tic-tac-toe for sixty years (like people who pay attention). Are the computers 'skilled' at tic-tac-toe?

I would submit not. Skill, in my opinion and as discussed above, requires decisions. Computers win at chess and similar games because they store massive databases of sequences of moves, calculate the remaining move trees, and pick the one that wins.

"Picking the one that wins" isn't skill -- it's basic logic, and anyone can do it. A skilled choice can only be made when the path to victory is nonobvious -- it takes no skill to say "I want to win."

With me? Enter 8th.

Random charge distances. What does that mean? Well, it means you can't assume you know what's going to happen six moves ahead. It means you have to be ready to make more decisions, meaning the oft-discussed 'skill' has to be employed more, not less, because the correct decision has to be weighed and judged to be determined the best one -- and that judgment has to be employed more often.

I really see support of the 'skill' of 7th edition as being support of those afraid of being called upon to make decisions under fire -- 7th is a much 'safer' environment where you can remain in control of all the variables, and build the entire gametree in your mind. Always knowing exactly what's going to happen makes for only a handful of game states; pretty much anyone can build them all in their head and pick the one that wins. The only 'skill' involved there is remembering statlines and picking targets.

In 8th, by contrast, there's going to be several branches from each charge (among other things), and therefore many more opportunities to make decisions -- decisions that are, due to the new rules, more difficult decisions. 8th is going to bring us a competitive environment where truly skilled, tactically-inclined players get a chance to shine, rather than people who have maximized the limited state space for a single list.

HeroFox
04-07-2010, 19:10
This sums it up for me:


8th is no more or less tactical than 7th. There are still choices to be made, and battleplans to be followed.

The results of those choices are now far more random, so whether your tactics work or not is in the lap of the dice gods.

The skill level has dropped to zero, but maybe the overall enjoyment factor of the game will rise.

My games these days are simply turn up and plonk some units down, move them around a bit and roll lots and lots of dice.

But also Drink more beer and talk nonsese with my mates a whole lot more.

No more, pre battle plans, endless army changes until they are just right. Cos it doesn't matter, even the most skillful player will now lose a whole heap of games to bad dice rolls.

Maybe the skill has gone from the game, but perhaps the fun level might increase.

I guess the player's ability to plan around random outcome is skill (on a realistic battlefield, things don't always go as planned), but at the same time, if luck and factor wasn't something you had to take account, you wouldn't be playing Warhammer in the first place (or any dice game rather).

I've always wondered why a die-hard RTS like me got into this game. The battles are pretty much the complete and polar opposite of what I would expect in a game of StarCraft, yet both are equally enjoyable because they're fun in different ways.

At the end of the day, fun is all that matters. Oh, and I believe 7th Ed. definitely has more skill because it was more technical with guess ranges, predictions, baits and charges, but 8th Ed. is definitely a lot more fun.

Edit: PS, your thread title sucks. Being "smart" has absolutely nothing to do with skill.

twistinthunder
04-07-2010, 19:23
it takes no skill to say "I want to win."



it does if you have a speech impediment.

Ultimate Life Form
04-07-2010, 19:25
-everything-

Kudos. An excellent summary. That you put it that way makes the whole thing pretty paradoxical; people decrying the game for requiring 'no skill' and at the same time quitting because they cannot think out of the box and have to leave the beaten tracks of their fossilized 'win with least amount of effort' strategy.

Witchblade
04-07-2010, 20:59
You must think chess takes absolutely no skill then. Sounds like a worthless definition to me then.

Random charges force players to think about all possible outcomes and their attached probabilities, sure, but the dice can curse you regardless. The decision to charge may be mathematically sound and would statistically play out positively were this situation to be played 100 times over, but rolling poorly on your 2d6 charge move can still cause you to lose the game or at least put you at a disadvantage. The right choice does not necessarily translate into a positive outcome anymore with random charges. Formulated otherwise, skilled players making the right decisions are still at the mercy of the dice gods. As skillful decisions no longer reliably result in positive game outcomes, the variation of wins increases and the positive correlation between being skillful and winning games decreases in strength.

It's funny. Most of the people who previously obtained a spot in my 'hey, this guy knows his stuff' list seem to think random charges reduce the tactical element of the game and vice versa.

Desert Rain
04-07-2010, 21:08
Nice summary, 8th edition require skill to play. You are better at it the more you play. 7th edition also required skill, but some of them where different than the ones that are required in 8th. Just because you might need to learn some new skills because your old ones doesn't work anymore, doesn't mean that 8th edition doesn't require skills.

GuyLeCheval
04-07-2010, 21:19
Though I agree with you, computers in chess definately have skill. Skill is making the right decision, and having a database of chess is a tool to make the right decision. Just like having to make a choice choosing that high level spell with your Lv4 mage or with your Lv1 mage. Your lv4 mage is in this case a tool helping you in making the right choice, as is mathhammer.

So a computer is definately skilled, because there is still a decision to be made and that one is made.

Then again, stop whining about 8th people and play it for around a year. Then it will be fully exploited and then you can make a opinion of it. now you play it while thinking of 7th.

Ultimate Life Form
04-07-2010, 21:35
You must think chess takes absolutely no skill then. Sounds like a worthless definition to me then.

Random charges force players to think about all possible outcomes and their attached probabilities, sure, but the dice can curse you regardless. The decision to charge may be mathematically sound and would statistically play out positively were this situation to be played 100 times over, but rolling poorly on your 2d6 charge move can still cause you to lose the game or at least put you at a disadvantage. The right choice does not necessarily translate into a positive outcome anymore with random charges. Formulated otherwise, skilled players making the right decisions are still at the mercy of the dice gods. As skillful decisions no longer reliably result in positive game outcomes, the variation of wins increases and the positive correlation between being skillful and winning games decreases in strength.

It's funny. Most of the people who previously obtained a spot in my 'hey, this guy knows his stuff' list seem to think random charges reduce the tactical element of the game and vice versa.

Players were always at the mercy of dice. How often did you see the most ridiculous things happen? I think my bud also didn't foresee that when he sandwiches my Temple Guard between a Giant and an Orcboss on Wyvern the Giant would die right away and the Wyvern break and barely escape with its life.

Randomness increases, but you forget that both players are subject to this and the more skilled player will still be able to exploit any given situation better and tip the scales to his favor more than the less skilled player.

Tomalock
04-07-2010, 21:39
It's funny. Most of the people who previously obtained a spot in my 'hey, this guy knows his stuff' list seem to think random charges reduce the tactical element of the game and vice versa.

Cute. Nice little insult to anyone who thinks differently from you. It must be fun making lists and putting your name on it, I'm sure your family is very proud.

Well, since you are a self-proclaimed person who "knows his stuff," then I am sure you can detail how 8th edition has reduced the "tactical element of the game." What exactly was the "tactical element of the game" that existed in 7th that doesn't exist in 8th? Unfortunatly, I was never a guy who made it on your grand "knows his stuff" list, so naturally I have no idea what I am talking about, but I'll try to rise up to your clearly mighty intellect. :rolleyes:

Everyone seems caught up on the random charge distance so lets go with that. In 7th, 9 out of 10 times you knew exactly how far your unit could charge. There was no variation, no randomness, no suprise. You went from point A to point B with terrain and wheeling modifying your total movement. Ok, so thats your "tactics."

In 8th you now have a distance between two and twelve inches over your base movement. You can premeasure, so you are able to make a more educated decision as to whether the reward is worth the risk. If you succeede the charge goes off, if you fail you only move the highest of the dice rolled. So your total movement could be anywhere from one inch to twelve plus your base movement. So not only do you have to decide if it is worth charging that unit, but you have to decide if you should charge multiple units at it. You have to weigh what will happen if only one of the units makes it in. You have to weigh how your army will look if everything fails, or even if only some of them fail. You have to think about how your opponent will react to what happens if you make your charge or if you fail your charge. In then end, you have to decide if that charge that will lose you the game is worth taking. But by god, that isn't even close to a "tactical element of the game." Tactics are having units that will do exactly what you ask of them 100% of the time without fail apparently.

I guess I better let my commander know that he should get rid of all of us independent thinking soldiers and bring in robots because we are incapeable of promoting a tactical element of warfare.

In the end, its all just a game where you roll dice and push little things around the table. I enjoy 8th, 10 games into it, and I think I will continue to enjoy it. I have lost 2 games that can be fairly directly linked to failed charges at crucial times, but I am ok with it. I positioned my troops, gave the command, and they/the dice failed me. It happens. Was my decision making any less "tactical" than in 7th when I would have gotten the charge off if I was good at estimating ranges? I don't think so, but then again I'm not on the "list" so I really wouldn't know. :eek:

Nocculum
04-07-2010, 21:43
Here is a thing for you all to try.

Go outside. Stand 4 feet (or 5 if you're quick on your toes) away from a fixed point.

Run forwards and time yourself.

How far do you get in 2 seconds?

You can easily clear 4 or 5 feet, but how far you run beyond that is entirely down to environment, the time of day, food intake, physical fitness and luck.

Welcome to 8th edition.

Sebavin
04-07-2010, 21:55
I don't really care all the pointlessly long paragraphs say so if I repeat myself I am sorry.
The randomness to me is to keep people on there toes and having to switch plans while still keeping your strategy and if mid game you change you strategy it can be a complete screw up and making sure that your strategy stays in tact while you switch your battle plan is very hard to do or at least has a hard learning curb. They want to make you try and play your army differently every now and then (for example a major charge rolls snake eyes) now you got to re fit how you will continue your battle plan with out changing everything that is going on.
What I am saying to me doesn't make any sense (at least to me) , but I just can find the right words for it.

Delusionist
04-07-2010, 21:59
I think the new edition will bring some good changes with it. It's true you can't plan ahead as far anymore, and I would have hoped for a bit less randomness, but I still think this sounds good.

Before it was all about pretty simple skills and very few random variables; setting up a well though trap and doing a great combi-charge and winning the game. Lots of skill, true, but not that interesting. I think the new edition will bring forth diferent gaming styles. Some players will be bold, while some might be more passive. The thing is you can't keep all your units out of max charge distance, there will always be someone who could charge you, and you can' know if your opponent will go for it or not. I think this is a welcome change, as the opponents reaction to your actions will be less obvious.

After taking a break through almost all of 7:th I'm really looking forward to getting back into the game.

Logan_uc
04-07-2010, 22:03
Ok i hate 8th, so i my be bias in this.

Saying that you need more skill with 8th is wrong, you need other skills as the game is very different from 7th.

IMHO you need less because with so much random things you cant calculate the outcome of any decision well.

For exemple you try to make a flank charge with a unit, you may be careful, and position the unit and charge only when you are certain that the charge connects, but if your opponent takes a risk and trys to charge that unit and the dice are good your plan goes down, on the other hand if you send cautions to the wind you may get the charge, so a lot more luck and less skill.

in the magic phase the same thing is true the, spells are very powerfull and can win a game or can devastate you.

now you have more attacks in combat and shooting and combat res is harder to get, so good and bad dice rolls take a bigger toll.

So of course you need skills to play 8th, they are different then those of 7th, but skill in 7th was much more decisive to the outcome of the game, now its a lot easier to make bad decisions and win because the dice where good and make good decisions and lose because the dice are bad.

In the end "skilled" player will lose more and "bad" players will win more with 8th.

Ultimate Life Form
04-07-2010, 22:07
I think the new edition will bring some good changes with it. It's true you can't plan ahead as far anymore, and I would have hoped for a bit less randomness, but I still think this sounds good.

Before it was all about pretty simple skills and very few random variables; setting up a well though trap and doing a great combi-charge and winning the game. Lots of skill, true, but not that interesting. I think the new edition will bring forth diferent gaming styles. Some players will be bold, while some might be more passive. The thing is you can't keep all your units out of max charge distance, there will always be someone who could charge you, and you can' know if your opponent will go for it or not. I think this is a welcome change, as the opponents reaction to your actions will be less obvious.

After taking a break through almost all of 7:th I'm really looking forward to getting back into the game.

That's a good point; I don't know why people lock jaws in a moot discussion about something as subjective as 'skill level' instead of focusing on the far more important point, fun level. I think once the quitters jump ship and the dust settles we'll have a gorgeous time with this edition.

Toshiro
04-07-2010, 22:10
Good summary, think you said it well :)

Shimmergloom
04-07-2010, 22:16
Here is a thing for you all to try.

Go outside. Stand 4 feet (or 5 if you're quick on your toes) away from a fixed point.

Run forwards and time yourself.

How far do you get in 2 seconds?

You can easily clear 4 or 5 feet, but how far you run beyond that is entirely down to environment, the time of day, food intake, physical fitness and luck.

Welcome to 8th edition.

Yeah it makes sense that on a windy day a Dwarf can now run 15 inches or 2 1/2 times their old charge range.

8th Edition: Hurricane-hammer.

Nocculum
04-07-2010, 22:21
My point was, charging is not a precise art.

You don't run at your enemy and stop immediately when your out of Movement value, the new rule represents everything from adrenaline, to hatred, to over eager troops rushing into battle or nerves, fear and miscommunication in the battle-line between officers and units.

The stagnation and precise, surgical nature of 7th edition movement allows experienced players to hands down run rings around anyone without a degree in precognitive movement.

We played 7th earlier, and then 8th immediately after.

I had a hard time running rings around my opponent, march blocking his army with a careful slip through his lines with scouts and could not march block and rear charge his army off the board in 3 very calculated movement phases with the random charge rule.

Positions yourself 8.5" away from a M4 unit was no fun in 7th.

Not every action comes with consequences, regardless of the sourced (dice or luck bases :p).

If you don't like it, play 7th.

You'll be hearing that line alot in the coming months.

8th isn't flawless, by all means, but it's a huge improvement for me personally, and I wager it'll come as a surprise to many of you once it settles in.

3rd game on Friday, time to try Lore of Beast Wild Hunt :D

Marshal Augustine
04-07-2010, 22:23
I agree with the increased tactical gameplay in 8th edition. I already have 8 games played and they have all been a blast. Random charges is the least of the changes, but is the mostfun. No longer are the march T1 charge T2 guaranteed... and the weight of every choice must be considered. I do love it.

Ozorik
04-07-2010, 22:43
Kudos. An excellent summary. That you put it that way makes the whole thing pretty paradoxical; people decrying the game for requiring 'no skill' and at the same time quitting because they cannot think out of the box and have to leave the beaten tracks of their fossilized 'win with least amount of effort' strategy.


Thank you for completely missing the point.

Spider-pope
04-07-2010, 22:47
Edit: PS, your thread title sucks. Being "smart" has absolutely nothing to do with skill.

The OP can correct me if i'm wrong but i believe it's a tongue in cheek rebuttal to the moronic thread elsewhere on this forum declaring that 8th ed was Warhammer for stupid people.

As for the topic i agree with pretty much everything Dokushin said.

Damocles8
04-07-2010, 22:50
-everything-

You sir, just made my list of 'knows his stuff,' well if I kept a list anyway.....

Don Zeko
04-07-2010, 23:29
So of course you need skills to play 8th, they are different then those of 7th, but skill in 7th was much more decisive to the outcome of the game, now its a lot easier to make bad decisions and win because the dice where good and make good decisions and lose because the dice are bad.

In the end "skilled" player will lose more and "bad" players will win more with 8th.

You left out the part where you make good decisions and win, or make bad decisions and lose, so your last sentence is completely unsupported (read: wrong)...or at least it would be, if it had any real meaning. In 8th edition, skilled players will be the ones that are better at the skill of winning 8th edition games more often than not. Unskilled players will be ones that aren't, just like in 7th edition. With more randomness, less skilled players (whatever that turns out to mean) will probably win more often than they would under a less random ruleset, but still will win less often than better skilled players.

What makes 8th better, we hope, is that it will de-emphasize the skills that many people think should have less impact on the game: army book selection and list-building. In 7th edition, one of the more important skills is the ability to select Daemons of Chaos as your army. Others include taking immune to psychology troops whenever possible and being able to consistently tell the difference between 7.75 inches and 8.25 inches without the benefit of a tape measure.

It's true, players that didn't have these skills will be relatively more successful in 8th, but this is a feature, not a bug. I think that the presence or absence of these particularly "skills" is a stupid and unfun way to determine who wins in Warhammer, so I welcome the new rules if they emphasize skills that make for a more rewarding game, like accurately assessing risks vs. reward, thinking ahead, anticipating your opponents battle plan, and adapting your strategy to account for changing circumstances, then Warhammer will be a better game for it.

Wakerofgods
05-07-2010, 00:31
Yeah it makes sense that on a windy day a Dwarf can now run 15 inches or 2 1/2 times their old charge range.

8th Edition: Hurricane-hammer.

Dwarves, a fictional race, can run a similar speed to humans and elves for very short periods during the heat of battle.

I dont find this suprising or unrealistic at all.

JDman
05-07-2010, 01:49
My philosophy is

Want to play a skill game, play starcraft 2

Want to play a nonsense game where you get to drink beer and eat pizza with friends while you show off your toy soldiers, play warhammer 8th ed

Fortunately both come out this month, well unfortunately for my wallet :(

chamelion 6
05-07-2010, 02:00
My philosophy is

Want to play a skill game, play starcraft 2

Want to play a nonsense game where you get to drink beer and eat pizza with friends while you show off your toy soldiers, play warhammer 8th ed

Fortunately both come out this month, well unfortunately for my wallet :(

JDman... That sums it up perfectly. :)

Putty
05-07-2010, 02:29
despite all the hate of 8th edition, i'm still not seeing enough armies being sold on ebay or where-ever to justify all the "I QUIT" sentiment.

so please offload your armies at 1/2 price to prove my observations wrong. :D

Pete_x
05-07-2010, 03:08
I don't really get the "my plan might fizzle" therefore no skill...

What?!? It's a little bit like being in a firefight against a guy with a gun that might misfire and saying : His gun might blow up... no need to duck for cover.

Sygerrik
05-07-2010, 03:37
I've met enough Warhammer players to know that "Warhammer for smart people" never existed. Nonetheless, it takes a lot more "skill" to manage probability and choose from a set of risky potential outcomes than to pick from a list of definite outcomes (or outcomes so weighted towards one end of the probability scale that they may as well be definite).

Warhammer 8th involves more of the collected set of skills, reasoning power, observation, planning and adaptability that has historically been referred to as "tactics" than Warhammer 7th. The generals who won historical victories: Napoleon, Hannibal, Salah ad-Din-- and the greatest military philosophers of history: von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu-- all emphasized the importance of flexibility and adaptability. The more predictable the outcome of a given battle, the less tactical thinking is required. I confess I am somewhat frustrated at how some people seem not to understand this.

indytims
05-07-2010, 03:51
I believe 8th requires just as much 'skill' to play as 7th. I've yet to see reasonable evidence to the contrary.

It's quite normal for someone upset with a new edition to put it down as much as they can - since that person doesn't like what they see, OBVIOUSLY that new version must not require much 'skill' and is therefor not worthy of their attention. So funny.

The fact is, 8th will simply require some of the same skills that 7th does, and it will also require other skills, as well. So you don't like random charging? Well, now you have to learn how to DEAL with not only the possibility of not reaching your target - but you'll also need to plan for the reaction your opponent will make if you don't.

Some might say you can't "plan for the unexpected", but I think you can - at least to a degree. Learning how to best to anticipate and react to the various random bits in the game will require skill and savvy all its own. How you react to your plan that changes mid-game is going to rely heavily on skill. I still think 7th ed was TOO predictable sometimes.

Just my 2 coppers, tho.

Darkspear
05-07-2010, 04:04
I too belong to the camp that believe that the 8th edition has less skill. Some people argue that this edition require players to be more skill because they must learn to improvise now that their battle plans do not always work anymore.

I disagree with this because what I have been noticing is that people actually deal with this by having more list-hammering. I have already notice a significant increase in t4 units in lists made by my friends and the internet. Long threads in the national warhammer forums discussing on what units to take so that they will work well irregardless of what happens.

I hate list hammer as I see this as a case of he-who-has-the-biggest-wallet (or the will to use it), wins.

chamelion 6
05-07-2010, 04:13
I too belong to the camp that believe that the 8th edition has less skill. Some people argue that this edition require players to be more skill because they must learn to improvise now that their battle plans do not always work anymore.

I disagree with this because what I have been noticing is that people actually deal with this by having more list-hammering. I have already notice a significant increase in t4 units in lists made by my friends and the internet. Long threads in the national warhammer forums discussing on what units to take so that they will work well irregardless of what happens.

I hate list hammer as I see this as a case of he-who-has-the-biggest-wallet (or the will to use it), wins.

I don't see it a more or less skill, just different skills. I think 8th will put more emphasis on abstract thinking and less on linear mathmatical thinking. Both are important skills and different people posess them in different measure. The problem is when you take either as an indication of intelligence.

If you really embrace the scenario approach the list-hammerers are goiung to be hard pressed to make it work. If you fall into the trap of playing pitched battles the objectives will be consistant and they'll have an advantage. As long as you play scenarios that demand different qualities from each army, the ability to power your way through a game isn't going to give you very consistant results. And that's the key to it. Different scenarios shoud offer opportunities for those units generally thought of as weak or inefficent or a point sink to finally do what they were intended to do.

Darnok
05-07-2010, 04:17
I hate list hammer as I see this as a case of he-who-has-the-biggest-wallet (or the will to use it), wins.

How is that any different to 7th Ed.?

Shimmergloom
05-07-2010, 05:03
My point was, charging is not a precise art.

You don't run at your enemy and stop immediately when your out of Movement value, the new rule represents everything from adrenaline, to hatred, to over eager troops rushing into battle or nerves, fear and miscommunication in the battle-line between officers and units.


That's great. You don't have to make it completely precise, but you don't have to make it so ridiculously random as well.

They could have had it both ways, but as usual, GW went overboard.

To take the standard M4 infantry unit and go from giving them the precise 8 inch charge range to giving them the stupidly random charge range of 6-18 inches is RANDOM.

GW could have satisfied both camps, by keeping it mostly precise, but at the same time having a rule that showed how a unit could do all the things you mentioned, by making charges 2*M + D3 or D6 or D3+1 or anything that didn't result in ridiculous charges that let units move across the table like they are Air Cavalry.

Call in the Gyro's boys, our Longbeards are gonna charge across the table!

Nocculum
05-07-2010, 06:17
You'l'l only complain about Dwarves being a gunline army if they didnt' Shimmergloom, and don't you know it :p

Jind_Singh
05-07-2010, 06:27
It's a tough call to make about 8th - I'm a big fan of 7th, though a lot of annoyed me too. It wasn't perfect but it allowed me to do something I'm very passionate about - roll dice and collect Goblins!

Now comes along 8th - I'm excited but at the same time I'm worried what will happen to my hobby that's kept me going since I was about 14 (going to be 33 tomorrow!:D)

On the one hand I think this is going to the cinematic edition - it's very stirring, it's true to form as 7th was very sterile - it was so inches perfect with people staying 8.2" away from you as they were 'out your charge range', and silly situations were a unit would be flanked, maybe survive, but the warriors would stand around (in a situation were they are ranked in 2 ranks), looking at their feet while their 2 warriors on the flank got beat down - now in 8th you can reform - that's great.
Random charges - this is also good as it takes out certainty - I don't want certainty - I want chaos! This is a game were the best general has to hope like heck, and think bloody fast on his/her feet to make the most out of a situation - and it's going to take real ballsy moves to try to break the foe. Horde rule, steadfast - excellent, it's going to balance the game ranks again as no more super cavalry days.

BUT they (GW) took a few things to really extreme boundaries - while the magic system is perhaps their best yet, the actual spells are SUPER STUPID! Purple sun? Really? Large template moves maybe up to 30" and kills anything that fails it's ini test. Plus 4 toughness - what? Spells is going to unbalance this edition, I've seen it in the 4-5 games I've played, magic is gone crazy!

But at the same time you only see 1-2 massive spells per game, sometimes the power die are fickle and won't appear.

So all in all this edition, from practice and reading the rules, is going to be a good challenge - so far in my local circle of gamers the only nay sayers are the ones who really liked knowing what was happening all the time - for them it was the control of the phases that got them going, keeping the game on their terms, and handing people ruthless spankings.

But you know what> No big loss, so far nearly everyone I've met whose had a dislike for 7th wasn't my kind of player so as I say - Good Riddance sucker! Leave me to my 8th, let me have fun, and let me spend the next 3 months re-learning how to play my favourite game with as much skill & passion I threw in to it in 2nd ed, 3rd ed, 4th ed, and 7th ed.

Thanks all!

EndlessBug
05-07-2010, 06:50
That's great. You don't have to make it completely precise, but you don't have to make it so ridiculously random as well.

They could have had it both ways, but as usual, GW went overboard.

To take the standard M4 infantry unit and go from giving them the precise 8 inch charge range to giving them the stupidly random charge range of 6-18 inches is RANDOM.

GW could have satisfied both camps, by keeping it mostly precise, but at the same time having a rule that showed how a unit could do all the things you mentioned, by making charges 2*M + D3 or D6 or D3+1 or anything that didn't result in ridiculous charges that let units move across the table like they are Air Cavalry.

Call in the Gyro's boys, our Longbeards are gonna charge across the table!

I couldn't agree more! 2d6 random charge is TOO random. Nocculum, I get your point, running distances would vary, but not by THAT much.

Magic -yeap, FAR too powerful sometimes. I love the new power dice and dispel dice mechanics, but keep the old spells, which were good, but not army destroying. The new ones do look just a bit too nasty. 1 scroll per army - also very good IMO.

shooting - fine, I liked the guess range weapons, more fun IMO.

What I really don't like is the uselessness of Fast Cav and skirmishers now. They have a few benefits, but there's not much point in taking them to redirect or harass anymore. Maybe 1 token flier for march blocking.

ChaosVC
05-07-2010, 09:22
Having read the entire book, the book has lots of potential and the infantry vs cavalry vs monster give the tactical aspect of the game a great feel to it, support attacks, horde formation, roles of command groups (ie; reforming during/after/before combat), roles of skirmishers and fast cav makes the game very interesting...until you go back to the chapter about movement phase and look at the charge rules... it says "Casinos have some of the world most tactical game ever!"

Darnok
05-07-2010, 09:59
"Casinos have some of the world most tactical game ever!"

E.g. Poker. Quoted for truth. ;)

The SkaerKrow
05-07-2010, 10:06
In 8th, by contrast, there's going to be several branches from each charge (among other things), and therefore many more opportunities to make decisions -- decisions that are, due to the new rules, more difficult decisions. 8th is going to bring us a competitive environment where truly skilled, tactically-inclined players get a chance to shine, rather than people who have maximized the limited state space for a single list.Except your decisions on the tabletop are largely meaningless because of how random combat resolution/results have become. Making a decision under fire or making it in a controlled environment are both equally meaningless if the framework of the game makes decisive action impossible.

Please stop trying to defend 8e as something that it isn't (and was never meant to be).

chamelion 6
05-07-2010, 10:13
Except your decisions on the tabletop are largely meaningless because of how random combat resolution/results have become. Making a decision under fire or making it in a controlled environment are both equally meaningless if the framework of the game makes decisive action impossible.

Please stop trying to defend 8e as something that it isn't (and was never meant to be).

The randomness isn't enough to make it meaningless. That's just a complete exageration. Perhaps it is more random than you like but that doesn't make it a universal truth. Position and timing still influence the outcome.

In 8th, just like every edition before it, there will be people that dominate the game... That's because they understand how to minimize the randomness and risk to the greatest extent possible. People that know just one way to approach a problem are not going to fare as well as they did in 6th / 7th.

Kal Taron
05-07-2010, 10:26
My gripe with 8th isn't so much the changes as such or that the game now requires different skills but that they simply went too far in many places for no apperent reason.

Random charge ranges? Sure, I don't like them but they aren't bad per se. 10 inch variance for infantry? Too much.

2D6 power dices? Good idea, but how does is scale with larger battles? Also that some races have the possibility to get additional dice is a huge balance problem. (E.g. Slann, Dwarves)

Nerfing Skirmishers? Sure, esp. their ability to redirect with the stupid FAQ was far too much. But why nerf them into the ground completely? They gave a boon to ranged skirmishers but the close combat ones are pretty boned.

Terrain more random? OK, I like a few examples of exotic terrain but why in the standard terrain list? The results you can get are strange at best and utterly stupid at worst. Why not multiple lists like in 6th IIRC. And then the low and hight results can be pretty exotic but they still match the theme of the whole list.

A well, as I'm currently not interested in tournaments, I'll just get my buddies to houserule what we don't like and be done with it.

yabbadabba
05-07-2010, 11:33
A well, as I'm currently not interested in tournaments, I'll just get my buddies to houserule what we don't like and be done with it. You know this might be a lot more perceptive than first seems.

This isn't a game with less skill. It is a different selection of skills, some familiar, some strange. One of those skills will be patience. The ability to accurately know how a game will play out just by getting a pencil and paper is gone, as it should be. Now there is an element of doubt, which there should be. The element of doubt is as much with your own army and plans as it is to your opponent's. The problem is when presented with any new situation is those most immersed in the previous situation find it the hardest to adapt to the new one. This is what is happening here, and it certainly happened to me with the transition from 5th-7th.

Yet this comment about houserules is also a very important part of 8th's ethos. House ruling is a very important and crucial element of wargaming. Not tournament play, but that is also a part of wargaming, although a small part. It is obvious that not only is GW pulling back on the tournament scene, but it is also trying to pull back on "officialdom" being a part of just regular play. We have seen more random, more "fantasy", more "fluff" elements re-introduced to the core rulebook, something that was wrongly assumed would happen naturally outside of the core rules over editions 6th-7th.

GW knows this game won't appeal to everyone, but the core of the mechanics remains the same. This makes house rules and tailoring the game to a personal preference so much more easier. The rulebook still functions fine for a pick up game, but for the next 12-18 months at least, but there won't be that dread when your opponent puts out his army that you know you have no hope.

ChaosVC
05-07-2010, 12:28
E.g. Poker. Quoted for truth. ;)

You know, the last person who qoute something for truth turns out to be an idiot... I don't know hmmm...:rolleyes:

Scactha
05-07-2010, 14:21
More randomness means more uncertainty. This scares and p*sses off some people who were used to getting the expected results every time. Itīs just different, not for dumber or smarter people.

Damocles8
05-07-2010, 14:25
I couldn't agree more! 2d6 random charge is TOO random. Nocculum, I get your point, running distances would vary, but not by THAT much.

Magic -yeap, FAR too powerful sometimes. I love the new power dice and dispel dice mechanics, but keep the old spells, which were good, but not army destroying. The new ones do look just a bit too nasty. 1 scroll per army - also very good IMO.

shooting - fine, I liked the guess range weapons, more fun IMO.

What I really don't like is the uselessness of Fast Cav and skirmishers now. They have a few benefits, but there's not much point in taking them to redirect or harass anymore. Maybe 1 token flier for march blocking.

But are you or people you know going to bet on getting that 11 or 12 on 2d6? I'd like to meet someone who would.....

Don Zeko
05-07-2010, 16:41
I couldn't agree more! 2d6 random charge is TOO random. Nocculum, I get your point, running distances would vary, but not by THAT much.

I think a lot of the panic over 8th edition is driven by nothing but statistical innumeracy. I'm not crazy about random charges myself, but everybody complaining about 15" charges from dwarves is ignoring the fact that a roll of 2D6 generates a (very) rough approximation of a normal distribution, meaning that average results are much more common than extreme results. 44% of the time you get a result between 6" and 8", and you'll get between 5" and 9" 83% of the time. On 3D6 minus the lowest result (cavalry charges), it's also tightly centered around the average result. cavalry will get 8" to 10" 48% of the time, and 7"-11" 73% of the time. Plus, freakishly long charges will only happen if somebody attempts them.

All told, failing easy charges due to low dice rolls will be rare, probably once or twice per game at the most. Making absurdly long charges will be basically unheard of, as any player that tries it consistently will be constantly failing charges and losing. I boldly predict that most of the players reading this will never see dwarves charge 15" at all.

amysrevenge
05-07-2010, 20:36
In 7th edition, one of the more important skills is the ability to select Daemons of Chaos as your army. Others include taking immune to psychology troops whenever possible and being able to consistently tell the difference between 7.75 inches and 8.25 inches without the benefit of a tape measure.

I love it.

In 8th Edition, the most important skill will be having backup plans for when you fail the "needed a 3 but rolled snake eyes" charge, or when your opponent hits a 12 out of the park for an improbable charge.

In 7th you rarely needed a backup plan - you knew with reasonable enough certainty exactly what would happen. The only uncertainties were once combats were actually initiated (whiffs on one side or a string of 6s on the other for instance), so the only time Plan B was required was for unlikely combats.

In 8th a skilled player will have a Plan B (and a Plan C and maybe even a Plan D) every turn.

nzdarkelf
05-07-2010, 20:42
Exactly Amysrevenge. Like in real life, a good player will now not only go to battle with a plan, they will go to battle with 'reserves' - just in case.

Logan_uc
05-07-2010, 20:50
You left out the part where you make good decisions and win, or make bad decisions and lose, so your last sentence is completely unsupported (read: wrong)...or at least it would be, if it had any real meaning. In 8th edition, skilled players will be the ones that are better at the skill of winning 8th edition games more often than not. Unskilled players will be ones that aren't, just like in 7th edition. With more randomness, less skilled players (whatever that turns out to mean) will probably win more often than they would under a less random ruleset, but still will win less often than better skilled players.

What makes 8th better, we hope, is that it will de-emphasize the skills that many people think should have less impact on the game: army book selection and list-building. In 7th edition, one of the more important skills is the ability to select Daemons of Chaos as your army. Others include taking immune to psychology troops whenever possible and being able to consistently tell the difference between 7.75 inches and 8.25 inches without the benefit of a tape measure.

It's true, players that didn't have these skills will be relatively more successful in 8th, but this is a feature, not a bug. I think that the presence or absence of these particularly "skills" is a stupid and unfun way to determine who wins in Warhammer, so I welcome the new rules if they emphasize skills that make for a more rewarding game, like accurately assessing risks vs. reward, thinking ahead, anticipating your opponents battle plan, and adapting your strategy to account for changing circumstances, then Warhammer will be a better game for it.

Ok i cant understand your 1st part, you say im wrong and then comfirmed what i sayed.

for the less emphasis on army selection i think you are wrong, with less combat resolution and being difficult to make combined charge, the army selection is all important if your units are inferior to to the other player you will likelly lose.

7th was all about risk vs reward and anticipating your opponent, now things are a gambel, you really cant expect any plan to go well, and the skill of 8th,is trying to take in acount all thing that can go wrong or good , but even if you master this, a good dice here and a bad dice ther will be more important than your skill.

Now im not saying that 8th isent fun for some players but saying that a game thats is alot more based on random factors makes skill more important isent true, and im taking in account the different skills needed for 7th and 8th.

ClockworkCorsair
05-07-2010, 20:55
Screw skill there is something that is far more important:

Risk management.

This game is all about the risk you take declaring that charge or putting that unit out there (same as it has been in all past editions)

Bloodless
05-07-2010, 21:13
Screw skill there is something that is far more important:

Risk management.

This game is all about the risk you take declaring that charge or putting that unit out there (same as it has been in all past editions)

Risk management is a skill. I find myself being forced to think outside the box far more in 8th Edition. I take far less heroes, and take full advantage of all my armies available unit types. Having a unit type to answer to any threat my opponent might throw at me, is key.

I find that 8 Ed takes more skill. The problem is people are still out there taking as many points in lords and heroes as they can, when they should be spending those points on masses of troops.

Shimmergloom
05-07-2010, 22:38
But are you or people you know going to bet on getting that 11 or 12 on 2d6? I'd like to meet someone who would.....

Why wouldn't you?

M3 or M4 infantry can only march 6-8".

From what I read and I may be wrong, because finding all these little rules changes are pretty difficult in all these thread, a failed charge is M + the highest D6 roll.

So gamble that you will be able to charge the distance and at worse your M3 infantry move 4" and your M4 infantry move 5".

If statistically you roll a 3 and a 4 average roll, then your M3 infantry on average will move 7" and your M4 infantry moves 8".

Pete_x
05-07-2010, 22:51
failed charge is only the highest d6 IIRC

peterburstrom
05-07-2010, 23:07
Why wouldn't you?

M3 or M4 infantry can only march 6-8".

From what I read and I may be wrong, because finding all these little rules changes are pretty difficult in all these thread, a failed charge is M + the highest D6 roll.

So gamble that you will be able to charge the distance and at worse your M3 infantry move 4" and your M4 infantry move 5".

If statistically you roll a 3 and a 4 average roll, then your M3 infantry on average will move 7" and your M4 infantry moves 8".

Well, according to a couple of people here on the forum that seem to know what they are talking about, a failed charge only gets you to the higher number of the 2 dice you rolled in inches.

Don Zeko is absolutely correct. The same logic can be applied to close combat as well. Somebody said in the beginning of this thread that combats, due to more dice being thrown about, have the potential to become extremely lopsided. Well, just by spearelves having the potential to kill 20 chaos warriors in one round, doesn't make it happen. The more dice you chuck, the less the actual result deviates from the average result. Also, the fact that you still will be able to dish out your attacks, no matter how many died, means that the Chaos Warriors' potential for damage is not skewed by the result of the Spearelves' amazing luck, one in a trillion, slaughtering half their unit (of course assuming a big one).

Hence active combat resolution will tend to deviate from the extremes, and thus becoming more reliable than earlier. The randomness moves from one area of the game previously dominated by it to another area where it rarely was involved earlier. The game is a bit different, sure. I'm fairly certain that I can adapt.

UberBeast
06-07-2010, 00:00
The more I play the 8th edition, the more I'm seeing that there are still skill involved. I won't say there are more, or that I prefer the tactical changes, but I've already noticed some things and changed my plans accordingly.

slayer8045
06-07-2010, 03:14
The dice always screw me, which is what has forced me to be more thoughtful. I agree every game has a level of skill required to be successful. I'm an old time player and I for one am excited about 8th ED. Yes there is some randomness to 8th, but how you react and how you set yourself up for those failed charges will be a large part of it. At the very least I'm looking forward to fielding large blocks of infantry, because no matter what one thinks it is infantry that wins wars.

Lost Child
15-07-2010, 03:07
From following this thread through until now, I've noticed an irrepressible trend. Those who think 8th is good, think it is good. Those who do not, believe that it is not. Nothing any of us write will change this. Its like Creationists debating Darwinians, pointless.

Nevertheless, away I go.

In a very general sense, a game like Warhammer is influenced by three things. Strategy, tactics, and luck. Allow me to define my terms. Strategy is the overarching plan, developed before anything has happened. Tactics are the turn by turn decisions on how to make the strategy work. Luck is a sexy lady who whores herself out on a whim.

Now, 7th edition was a strategy weighted game. You literally could plan your way through the entire battle. It was a game of capitalizing on mistakes, where good planning and execution won. You align your cavalry, they charge, and your plan worked perfectly. But wait, you rolled nothing but 1's, and lady luck scorned you. Even the most competitive individual can rant and rave, but in the end, they know their plan did not fail them, the dice did, and they will know this and not condemn the game. Their opponent, if they're equally prepared, will likely capitalize on this bad luck and turn it to their advantage.

Now, 8th edition. Suddenly, that bad luck, is going to happen a lot more. There are two ways to deal with this. Those of you who liked the planning part of 7th, all you have to do is plan EVEN MORE. The nature of 8th is simply going foster more 2,500 + point games, thus you will inherently have more units or troops to play with, and as such,the planning will be, not so much what will happen every step of the way, but where do i position everything so that when it hits the fan, I'm prepared, my plan will still work. Conversely, i think we will see the rise of players who plan nothing but are just prodigiously good at adapting to changing circumstances. 8th is still potentially a game of strategy, but not as purely as 7th was.

The editions are different, but in the end, ability will win out. You can only luck out and roll a 12 to charge so many times. But what I think will be an offshoot of 8th is the development of simply more tactically savvy players. In 7th, unless a knowledgeable player went out of his way to show and demonstrate what a tactical error was and how to exploit it, new players were on their own. In 8th, the randomness will present new players with a greater and more frequent opportunity to learn on their own how to take advantage of their opponent's sudden disadvantage. And likewise, the able player will then promptly show the beginner how disadvantage is turned into victory.

peterburstrom
15-07-2010, 09:47
Now, 8th edition. Suddenly, that bad luck, is going to happen a lot more. There are two ways to deal with this. Those of you who liked the planning part of 7th, all you have to do is plan EVEN MORE. The nature of 8th is simply going foster more 2,500 + point games, thus you will inherently have more units or troops to play with, and as such,the planning will be, not so much what will happen every step of the way, but where do i position everything so that when it hits the fan, I'm prepared, my plan will still work. Conversely, i think we will see the rise of players who plan nothing but are just prodigiously good at adapting to changing circumstances. 8th is still potentially a game of strategy, but not as purely as 7th was.

The editions are different, but in the end, ability will win out. You can only luck out and roll a 12 to charge so many times. But what I think will be an offshoot of 8th is the development of simply more tactically savvy players. In 7th, unless a knowledgeable player went out of his way to show and demonstrate what a tactical error was and how to exploit it, new players were on their own. In 8th, the randomness will present new players with a greater and more frequent opportunity to learn on their own how to take advantage of their opponent's sudden disadvantage. And likewise, the able player will then promptly show the beginner how disadvantage is turned into victory.

Hello, and welcome to the forum! I also joined when I lurked around and read this thread.

What I dpn't understand is that everybody says that luck plays a much bigger role in this new game than previously. Sure, you roll for dices in the magic phase. On the other hand, the BSB allows you to re-roll all failed leadership tests. Sure, you need leadership tests to do advanced, non-7th-legal maneuvers (such as reform and move etc), but you weren't allowed earlier. If you want to play it safe, just don't use them. Aso, you WILL have your BSB close by, unless you play Tomb Kings (he's still worthless).

As for people ranting about random charge distances: The only case where I can imagine that a 12"+M charge will strike home, is if a frenzied unit fails their leadership and roll boxcars for distance. Nobody in their right minds will willingly try a charge that has a 1 in 36 chance of succeeding. And any eventual randomness has now moved from 7th:s combat to 8th:s charges, as explained in an earlier post of mine. The more dice rolled, the less this Lady Luck plays a part.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
15-07-2010, 09:53
Nobody in their right minds will willingly try a charge that has a 1 in 36 chance of succeeding.

Why not? There isn't any real damning penalty for failing a charge: you move 1 to 6 inches toward the target instead of your M score or 2xM. And if you have something that has a large damage payout, it can pay off to missile some of your monsters.

peterburstrom
15-07-2010, 10:04
Why not? There isn't any real damning penalty for failing a charge: you move 1 to 6 inches toward the target instead of your M score or 2xM. And if you have something that has a large damage payout, it can pay off to missile some of your monsters.

Ok. Do me a favor, and try to keep count under the course of 8th edition how many of these charges actually hit home. It should be one in 36 per try, assuming that you have a corridor wide enough to get your unit through between units and obstacles and at least 16" long.

I would like to respond in this way as well: Why would you? I'd love to see your infantry move 1-6" forward, which makes the unit you intended to charge 15-10" away from you, most likely closer to 6 than to 1 (since you pick the highest number of 2 dice). In a straight line, nonetheless. You will be taking a serious risk, for a shot 1 in 36 to reach your intended target.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
15-07-2010, 10:11
But the risk will not be all that much greater than if you opted to move forward; in fact, this is pretty easy to do the numbers on, factoring in the random element of the failed charge and estimating if the worst case scenario is something you can live with. If you do not wish to enter CC, you will not charge anyway, so the situation is not relevant.

peterburstrom
15-07-2010, 10:22
Yes, well, it is actually just as easy to succeed with the charge as it is to move only 1" in the following fail. although it is very possible to get a 6" forward move, it is by no means certain. 11/36 if I'm not mistaken. If you want to get your close combat unit actually into close combat, I'll recommend you to move instead of charging unless you think you can make it. 6" is less than 8", and 25 times out of 36, you will move even less. Go ahead and calculate your risks/rewards. Even if you say that you will try it out, I think that when you reach an actual gaming table, my guess is that you will re-evaluate that opinion.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
15-07-2010, 10:58
The probabilities of a failed charge are as follows (on 2d6):

6....11/36...30.5%
5.....9/36......25%
4.....7/36...19.4%
3.....5/36...13.9%
2.....3/36....8.3%
1.....1/36....2.8%

Which means you can usually count on moving 4"-6" or more.

Missiling, as I stated in my initial post, will be most useful for monsters and other tough things with lots of damage generation in conjuction with ranged or magic superiority: A couple of Hydras in a DE gunline backed up with magic comes to mind, "diverters" that actually pack a punch.

peterburstrom
15-07-2010, 11:47
Well, what movement value does a hydra have? 6? That failed charge will be costly if you intend to ever get it into close combat. You will move at most half your move rate, and with 59,5% risk of moving less than half, for the off chance of getting a charge that has 2,8% chance of reaching. I'm quite confident that the amount of times I will actually be seeing this in an actual game (i.e not theoryhammer forum posting) will be less than 5, and then mostly by psyched 13-year olds who think that their dwarves will be able to lunge halfway across the battlefield, adn perhaps desperate opponents with only that very roll left to save the day.

Rogue
15-07-2010, 14:44
Since it really does not matter whether you make the charge or not, how does it make the game more "skillful" to have random charges? I see it as a change but I dont see it require more decision making. Of all the different changes I dont see random charges as a dumbing down of the game. The lack of guessing ranges for war machines does however.

tetrishermit
15-07-2010, 15:25
WHFB skills to me always came from complete knowledge of all armies and a solid understanding of the statistics involved in the dice rolling. There are games like RISK that are far more random that people still consider strategic.

yabbadabba
15-07-2010, 16:07
The lack of guessing ranges for war machines does however. How is that dumbing down?

spiderman5z
15-07-2010, 19:09
8th edition is what it is. Quit yer whining and play some games! ;-)

skullkandy
19-07-2010, 15:01
I'm so tired of people whining about lack of skill in 8th.

If the only so called "skill" someone possess that made them win was being able to eyeball distances it's no wonder they're whining now that the game requries actual skill in tactics and strategy to win.

peterburstrom
19-07-2010, 15:23
Since it really does not matter whether you make the charge or not, how does it make the game more "skillful" to have random charges? I see it as a change but I dont see it require more decision making. Of all the different changes I dont see random charges as a dumbing down of the game. The lack of guessing ranges for war machines does however.

OK. Try to play a game where you give away all charges to your opponent. Forget flanking. Forget breaking ranks. Forget overruns. Forget the fact that you decide where the melee combat is fought. Now, try to win it. I will salute you if you actually manage to do it.

yabbadabba
19-07-2010, 15:32
OK. Try to play a game where you give away all charges to your opponent. When does that happen?

Forget flanking. When does that happen?

Forget breaking ranks. When does that happen?

Forget overruns. When does that happen?

Forget the fact that you decide where the melee combat is fought. When does that happen?

Now, try to win it. I will salute you if you actually manage to do it. Suprisingly plenty will. Over exaggeration doesn't make a good basis for an argument.

peterburstrom
19-07-2010, 15:37
My point was that charging DOES matter. Please read the quote.

yabbadabba
19-07-2010, 15:41
My point was that charging DOES matter. Please read the quote. Then you needed to have made it clearer. The quote you put in was advocating random charge distances, leading to you post appearing to criticise that.

I agree with you, charges do matter. Yet even in your example, dwarves have been managing like that quite well for about 7 odd years :evilgrin:

peterburstrom
19-07-2010, 15:45
Terribly sorry if I was unclear. One of my recent pet peeves is the fact that people tend to jump on the bandwagon of "there's absolutely no point in charging anymore, since I don't get to strike first. Hence, 8th sucks". Lots of armies out there, even in 7th, did not even need that first strike thing, especially heavy armoured dudes and monsters.

Darthvegeta800
19-07-2010, 18:33
You left out the part where you make good decisions and win, or make bad decisions and lose, so your last sentence is completely unsupported (read: wrong)...or at least it would be, if it had any real meaning. In 8th edition, skilled players will be the ones that are better at the skill of winning 8th edition games more often than not. Unskilled players will be ones that aren't, just like in 7th edition. With more randomness, less skilled players (whatever that turns out to mean) will probably win more often than they would under a less random ruleset, but still will win less often than better skilled players.

What makes 8th better, we hope, is that it will de-emphasize the skills that many people think should have less impact on the game: army book selection and list-building. In 7th edition, one of the more important skills is the ability to select Daemons of Chaos as your army. Others include taking immune to psychology troops whenever possible and being able to consistently tell the difference between 7.75 inches and 8.25 inches without the benefit of a tape measure.

It's true, players that didn't have these skills will be relatively more successful in 8th, but this is a feature, not a bug. I think that the presence or absence of these particularly "skills" is a stupid and unfun way to determine who wins in Warhammer, so I welcome the new rules if they emphasize skills that make for a more rewarding game, like accurately assessing risks vs. reward, thinking ahead, anticipating your opponents battle plan, and adapting your strategy to account for changing circumstances, then Warhammer will be a better game for it.

Indeed 7th edition seems to have been a bit of a 'instinctive measuring contest'. Which I'd hardly qualify as tactical insight but more a mathematical instinct.

In any case... every armybook, codex, rules edition etc has threads like this... and almost always people complain 'previous time was better'. :shifty:

Zoolander
19-07-2010, 19:29
Except your decisions on the tabletop are largely meaningless because of how random combat resolution/results have become. Making a decision under fire or making it in a controlled environment are both equally meaningless if the framework of the game makes decisive action impossible.

Please stop trying to defend 8e as something that it isn't (and was never meant to be).

THIS is the truth. With super random charges and essentially simultaneous combats, there is very little skill left, as the outcomes of your choices are meaningless. I have played about 10 games so far, and enjoy the new magic system, but to me, it just feels like they dumbed the game down to attract some younger 40k players. Each game that I've one, I can't really say I outplayed my opponent. Each time, the dice gods favored me over him. Regardless of either of our plans. That's not skill. That's luck.

To those who say planning around randomness requires more skill, then there are some slot machines in vegas that need your coin!

Lord of Divine Slaughter
19-07-2010, 20:27
How come you liked the previous edition then zoolander? That one was ruled by dice too, you rolled to hit, you rolled to wound, you rolled for a bunch of stuff..

The skill of perfect eye measuring was easily developed within the first 5 games, and then 7th was just a game of predictability.

8th is unpredictable and fun. It makes you think on the spot, as you can't rely on your troops always performing perfectly - and then the I stat finally got its function back :)

Rafi
19-07-2010, 21:00
How come you liked the previous edition then zoolander? That one was ruled by dice too, you rolled to hit, you rolled to wound, you rolled for a bunch of stuff..

Well, in theory (hehe), you could win a game of 7th edition in which you failed (ie, rolled the worse possible result) every dice roll that you were forced to make. I suppose that is still possible with 8th, but winning would be much harder due to random charge distance and the increase in fighting ranks (which decreases the impact of static rez).

Sygerrik
19-07-2010, 21:30
The arrogance of some Fantasy players is breathtaking. Especially priceless are the implications, subtle or not, that they've made the game "for kids" or, (how telling!) "for 40k players."
Guess what, boys? You play with toy soldiers. Yes, they're very grown up toy soldiers. But they're still toy soldiers. And all of this posturing and preening to appear as though we're all Very Serious Generals falls flat when you get statements like this:
"THIS is the truth. With super random charges and essentially simultaneous combats, there is very little skill left, as the outcomes of your choices are meaningless."

I don't mean to pick on you, Zoolander, but that comment makes no sense at all. The more random the game gets, the more "tactical" skill it requires. Knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 is not tactics. Knowing that charging your Chaos Lord on a Dragon into the front of a unit of Ironbreakers will break them is not tactics. Tactics are responding to an evolving situation, one where uncertainty is a factor, and making the best decision you can in the circumstances. If the game was truly tactical, we'd always play closed-list, with a deployment like Stratego (inability to see enemy deployment at all) and the tables would be at eye level. That would be a real simulation of a general's perspective.

peterburstrom
19-07-2010, 21:31
THIS is the truth. With super random charges and essentially simultaneous combats, there is very little skill left, as the outcomes of your choices are meaningless. I have played about 10 games so far, and enjoy the new magic system, but to me, it just feels like they dumbed the game down to attract some younger 40k players. Each game that I've one, I can't really say I outplayed my opponent. Each time, the dice gods favored me over him. Regardless of either of our plans. That's not skill. That's luck.

To those who say planning around randomness requires more skill, then there are some slot machines in vegas that need your coin!

The outcomes of choices - meaningless? No. Just no. If that was the case, I'd just as soon charge a fully ranked unit of Swordmasters with my Carrion, in the front, as a lone character or undefended warmachine. This game is all about choices, and none of them are meaningless. What to shoot? Who to charge? Should I wait and set up an ambush or can I deal with this threat head on?

Also, a die roll is the most random when it is a single die you roll. There are equal chances of getting a 6 and a 1 on a six-sided die. When adding dice, the outcomes favour the median value more and more for each die. This means that there is a lot bigger chance of a spearman unit actually conforming to theoryhammer in terms of how many wounds it is causing to another unit today than earlier. More dice per roll - less random results. Less random results-more predictable outcomes.

Phaedrus
19-07-2010, 22:03
To those who say planning around randomness requires more skill, then there are some slot machines in vegas that need your coin!

As you can do nothing to influence the result of a slot machine when you play it, that is a horrible analogy.

You played 7th edition, a game with any number of random elements. As did everyone who complains about this change. You don't seem to believe that the dice which influenced your hits, wounds, saves, tests, spells, casts, miscasts, shooting distances, misfires, etc. made the game non-strategic. So if all the other randomness that exists in the game doesn't bother you, why does the change to movement terrify you so?

Personally, I consider adaptability (either to an unanticipated event in a warhammer battle, a change in the ruleset, or a real cataclysmic event) to be a more praiseworthy skill than being able to eyeball eight and a quarter inches.

peterburstrom
19-07-2010, 22:06
As you can do nothing to influence the result of a slot machine when you play it, that is a horrible analogy.

You played 7th edition, a game with any number of random elements. As did everyone who complains about this change. You don't seem to believe that the dice which influenced your hits, wounds, saves, tests, spells, casts, miscasts, shooting distances, misfires, etc. made the game non-strategic. So if all the other randomness that exists in the game doesn't bother you, why does the change to movement terrify you so?

Personally, I consider adaptability (either to an unanticipated event in a warhammer battle, a change in the ruleset, or a real cataclysmic event) to be a more praiseworthy skill than being able to eyeball eight and a quarter inches.

Quoted For Truth.

kyuzo
19-07-2010, 22:31
I don't mean to pick on you, Zoolander, but that comment makes no sense at all. The more random the game gets, the more "tactical" skill it requires. Knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 is not tactics. Knowing that charging your Chaos Lord on a Dragon into the front of a unit of Ironbreakers will break them is not tactics. Tactics are responding to an evolving situation, one where uncertainty is a factor, and making the best decision you can in the circumstances. If the game was truly tactical, we'd always play closed-list, with a deployment like Stratego (inability to see enemy deployment at all) and the tables would be at eye level. That would be a real simulation of a general's perspective.

Randomness has nothing to do with tactics. The 2 are completely seperate things. Regardless of whether or not it is random or static will not change the fact that you need tactics to respond to each.

Knowing that your chaos lord on dragon can charge a unit of ironbreakers and kill them is not tactics, you are correct. The dwarf player setting himself up in a position to respond to the chaos lord who is about to charge IS tactics, and the chaos player responding to his change in position IS tactics.

Playing a closed list does not make anything tactical, it just changes the tactics you use. No general would enter a battle blindly. Scouting is a very important part of warfare, just like in stratego. No quality general goes in without knowing what they are up against.

Zoolander
21-07-2010, 15:29
How come you liked the previous edition then zoolander? That one was ruled by dice too, you rolled to hit, you rolled to wound, you rolled for a bunch of stuff..

The skill of perfect eye measuring was easily developed within the first 5 games, and then 7th was just a game of predictability.

8th is unpredictable and fun. It makes you think on the spot, as you can't rely on your troops always performing perfectly - and then the I stat finally got its function back :)

Because while a small amount of randomness is fun and interesting, a good general can overcome bad die rolls in such a scenario. The people that are saying "randomness = skill" are not seeing the whole picture. It's true, a small amount of randomness does make a general compensate for a lack of certainty. That is part of the fun in WHFB. However, the more random it becomes, the less the game relies on your skill to win as opposed to good die rolling. 8th ed = more randomness, less skill involved. If you don't believe me, whip out a deck of cards and play War. How much skill is involved there? Did you use your skills as a game player to compensate for the randomness? No.


The arrogance of some Fantasy players is breathtaking. Especially priceless are the implications, subtle or not, that they've made the game "for kids" or, (how telling!) "for 40k players."
Guess what, boys? You play with toy soldiers. Yes, they're very grown up toy soldiers. But they're still toy soldiers. And all of this posturing and preening to appear as though we're all Very Serious Generals falls flat when you get statements like this:
"THIS is the truth. With super random charges and essentially simultaneous combats, there is very little skill left, as the outcomes of your choices are meaningless."

I don't mean to pick on you, Zoolander, but that comment makes no sense at all. The more random the game gets, the more "tactical" skill it requires. Knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 is not tactics. Knowing that charging your Chaos Lord on a Dragon into the front of a unit of Ironbreakers will break them is not tactics. Tactics are responding to an evolving situation, one where uncertainty is a factor, and making the best decision you can in the circumstances. If the game was truly tactical, we'd always play closed-list, with a deployment like Stratego (inability to see enemy deployment at all) and the tables would be at eye level. That would be a real simulation of a general's perspective.

It's not arrogance. It's just fact. Fantasy tended to attact older players and required more skill than 40k does. There's nothing inherently wrong in this. This is my belief in why they changed 8th to be more random and easier. Fantasy has always trailed 40k in sales (by like half) and this is a good marketing strategy for increasing that. You don't have to be a marketing major to figure out what they are doing here. There's a couple of posts from 40k players saying how they are switching to fantasy because they like 8th ed. Could it be because they borrowed some rules from 40k and made the game more simple? :eek: Possibly.

Making a game more random does not require more skill. That is the hogwash 8th ed fans will try to convince people of, but the truth is, the more random a game becomes, the less skill it takes, and the less meaningful decisions and actions in the game actually mean. Again, a small amount of randomness is fun and taxes a general to compensate for it. Too much randomness has the opposite effect - less skill is actually used because less of the outcome can be influenced.


The outcomes of choices - meaningless? No. Just no. If that was the case, I'd just as soon charge a fully ranked unit of Swordmasters with my Carrion, in the front, as a lone character or undefended warmachine. This game is all about choices, and none of them are meaningless. What to shoot? Who to charge? Should I wait and set up an ambush or can I deal with this threat head on?

Also, a die roll is the most random when it is a single die you roll. There are equal chances of getting a 6 and a 1 on a six-sided die. When adding dice, the outcomes favour the median value more and more for each die. This means that there is a lot bigger chance of a spearman unit actually conforming to theoryhammer in terms of how many wounds it is causing to another unit today than earlier. More dice per roll - less random results. Less random results-more predictable outcomes.

Random charges plus simulatenous combats means that setting up charges is relatively meaningless now, as most people are taking big blocks of 30+ models in a unit. So you charge and get +1 CR. Big whoop. Unless you've got lances or do impact hits, it's relatively meaningless to charge, and since you're not likely to kill all 30 models in that unit, they will get to hit you back. Hence, the outcome relies more on dice rolling, less on careful planning. It's a perfect atmosphere if you are trying to attract some younger 40k players. Sure, there are some exceptions to the rule, such as your carrion example. But since they are shoving the 'block unit' style of gaming down our throats, you will see fewer carrion and skirmishers in general, and more big blocks of models. My last game was against an orc player that took two units of 77 orcs. :eek: A ploy to sell more minis? Maybe. :p

Yes, the more dice you roll at once the more the numbers even out. Rolling 2 dice for charges does not qualify for rolling "more dice" in your example. Also in 7th, you only had the front row attacking back, so those die rolls were pretty important, meaning you really wanted to charge. In 8th, you're going to get those attacks regardless.


As you can do nothing to influence the result of a slot machine when you play it, that is a horrible analogy.

You played 7th edition, a game with any number of random elements. As did everyone who complains about this change. You don't seem to believe that the dice which influenced your hits, wounds, saves, tests, spells, casts, miscasts, shooting distances, misfires, etc. made the game non-strategic. So if all the other randomness that exists in the game doesn't bother you, why does the change to movement terrify you so?

Personally, I consider adaptability (either to an unanticipated event in a warhammer battle, a change in the ruleset, or a real cataclysmic event) to be a more praiseworthy skill than being able to eyeball eight and a quarter inches.

Again, small amounts of randomness are fun and do take skill to plan around. Large amount of randomness take the skill away. The slot machine is a perfect example. 8th ed isn't quite there yet, but with random movement and basically simultaneous combats, you are relying more on dice rolling and less on your careful maneuvering of troops.

Last weekend I played in a tournament and did very well. Came in first. The second game I was outmatched in skill. He outmaneuvered me nearly every turn. In 7th ed, he would have beaten me. But thanks to the game relying more on dice gods and less on skill, and thanks to simultaneous combats, I beat him soundly. He could not rely on his units to perform the way they should. The game had enough randomness as it was. Adding more IMO did not create a better game.

This is not to say you cannot enjoy 8th ed more than 7th. Whether you enjoy the randomness and the new combat system is up to you. I personally do not, as I think 7th was a more strategic game. I do, however, think the new magic system is wonderful and fluffy and certainly more balanced than 7th. So it isn't all bad. :)

Zoolander
21-07-2010, 15:30
Quoted For Truth.

Every time some says Quoted For Truth when it isn't true at all, a kitten somewhere dies. Congratulations kitten killer! :cries:

Rogue
21-07-2010, 15:42
How is that dumbing down?

I use my skills from the Geometry class from around 15 years ago to determine an educated "guess" for all of my warmachines that need a guess. I rarely had a bad guess when I used it, and I consider an educated guess using this method to be skillful. Not using it would be dumbing down in my opinion.

Of course if someone just makes wild guesses then the new editions method is not really a dumbing down.

willowdark
21-07-2010, 15:45
Yet another example of how 7th rewarded you for doing something well and 8th just hands you the result without asking anything.

GodlessM
21-07-2010, 15:48
Every time some says Quoted For Truth when it isn't true at all, a kitten somewhere dies. Congratulations kitten killer! :cries:

Funny 'cause you have tonne it several times in this thread, if not in those exact words.

yabbadabba
21-07-2010, 15:51
I use my skills from the Geometry class from around 15 years ago to determine an educated "guess" for all of my warmachines that need a guess. I rarely had a bad guess when I used it, and I consider an educated guess using this method to be skillful. Not using it would be dumbing down in my opinion.
Of course if someone just makes wild guesses then the new editions method is not really a dumbing down. Fair enough, but why should you constantly have to guess when within a shot to two any experienced gunner will have the range to any number of battlefield targets calculated and the powder needed organised? I don't normally like bringing reality into WFB as it blatantly doesn't need it, but all guessing does is make the battlefield an unequal plane for the players before a dice is rolled. Guessing vs non-guessing has nothing to do with dumbing down as it is all just game mechanics. Epic/WM are great examples of this where there is as much measuring as you want, yet the games are arguably far more skill driven than WFB will ever be.

Rogue
21-07-2010, 16:00
I see it as a change but I dont see it require more decision making. Of all the different changes I dont see random charges as a dumbing down of the game.


OK. Try to play a game where you give away all charges to your opponent. Forget flanking. Forget breaking ranks. Forget overruns. Forget the fact that you decide where the melee combat is fought. Now, try to win it. I will salute you if you actually manage to do it.


One of my recent pet peeves is the fact that people tend to jump on the bandwagon of "there's absolutely no point in charging anymore, since I don't get to strike first. Hence, 8th sucks". Lots of armies out there, even in 7th, did not even need that first strike thing, especially heavy armoured dudes and monsters.

Please read my post fully next time that you try to comment on it. At no point did I mention Flanking, Rank Breaking, and Overruns did not matter. That is a different part of the whole decision making process to prosecute a combat. The physical act of charging has changed, but I did not say that 8th sucks because of it. I was one of those ones who did not get the first strike with my dwarfs, so I dont hold striking first as something sacred. Dont put words into my mouth!

peterburstrom
21-07-2010, 16:11
Random charges plus simulatenous combats means that setting up charges is relatively meaningless now, as most people are taking big blocks of 30+ models in a unit. So you charge and get +1 CR. Big whoop. Unless you've got lances or do impact hits, it's relatively meaningless to charge, and since you're not likely to kill all 30 models in that unit, they will get to hit you back. Hence, the outcome relies more on dice rolling, less on careful planning. It's a perfect atmosphere if you are trying to attract some younger 40k players. Sure, there are some exceptions to the rule, such as your carrion example. But since they are shoving the 'block unit' style of gaming down our throats, you will see fewer carrion and skirmishers in general, and more big blocks of models. My last game was against an orc player that took two units of 77 orcs. :eek: A ploy to sell more minis? Maybe. :p

Yes, the more dice you roll at once the more the numbers even out. Rolling 2 dice for charges does not qualify for rolling "more dice" in your example. Also in 7th, you only had the front row attacking back, so those die rolls were pretty important, meaning you really wanted to charge. In 8th, you're going to get those attacks regardless.


7th was very random as well. If you, by some insane stroke of luck, manage to kill off the whole front rank of a unit of Chaos Warriors with your Empire Spearmen, you did not get hits back. The very game mechanic made the extreme payoff in close combat so much more meaningful. And, as you said, the less dice, the more extreme results.

Why do you think that everybody will play with only large blocks? The way to kill off large blocks is with war machines and other templates. War machines and wizards are killed by skirmishers and flyers. Skirmishers and flyers are killed by archery. Archers are killed by war machines. How does that vary from earlier variants of Warhammer?

I would very much like to meet that fabled orc army with 2x77 orcs with my Screaming Skull Catapults. Eat burning skulls with autopanic at -1, 4 times each turn.

Only big blocks will lose against a balanced army, barring extreme luck or very skilful generals.

Remadia
21-07-2010, 16:20
8th is certainly a lot more fun than 7th and that's all that matters.

By the by Zoolander, that pink is awful to read.

peterburstrom
21-07-2010, 16:28
Every time some says Quoted For Truth when it isn't true at all, a kitten somewhere dies. Congratulations kitten killer! :cries:

Hey. Truth is something multilayered. Your truth is not mine, which is quite obvious from this thread.

Souppilgrim
21-07-2010, 18:55
Other than charge distances how on earth is 8th more random luck than 7th????

I have useful BSB's, 18" range on a general if I want it, steadfast units, and a baseline of magic in every game. 25+ dice being rolled to decide the outcome of a fight is LESS random than rolling 6. It's basic statistics.
The only thing more random in 8th is charge distance....but charges are also less random because of premeasuring, better movement rules, and taking away strike first from chargers.

In this thread: lots of people who realized that their UBER 7th edition LIST building "skills" aren't going to win them 8th edition games.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-07-2010, 19:23
Because while a small amount of randomness is fun and interesting, a good general can overcome bad die rolls in such a scenario. The people that are saying "randomness = skill" are not seeing the whole picture. It's true, a small amount of randomness does make a general compensate for a lack of certainty. That is part of the fun in WHFB. However, the more random it becomes, the less the game relies on your skill to win as opposed to good die rolling. 8th ed = more randomness, less skill involved. If you don't believe me, whip out a deck of cards and play War. How much skill is involved there? Did you use your skills as a game player to compensate for the randomness? No.

... I do, however, think the new magic system is wonderful and fluffy and certainly more balanced than 7th. So it isn't all bad. :)

Funny how you dislike randomness, yet like magic :wtf:

Magic is probably the most random phase of all. Not only aren't you in control of what you will be capable of (random spells), the potency varies wildly from magic phase to magic phase (random power die generation), and then you even have to roll for whether the casting is successfull - how is this any different from rolling a charge distance? :rolleyes:

Kal Taron
21-07-2010, 19:29
@souppilgrim
There's also Mysterious Terrain, Dangerous Terrain tests and the increased wackiness of magic.
But I guess the charge distances are a pretty big deal for some. Esp. because the Movement phase was pretty much the only non-random phase before.

Souppilgrim
21-07-2010, 19:31
@souppilgrim
There's also Mysterious Terrain, Dangerous Terrain tests and the increased wackiness of magic.
But I guess the charge distances are a pretty big deal for some. Esp. because the Movement phase was pretty much the only non-random phase before.

Sure, but where I play we only sometimes use the mysterious terrain, and in my opinion magic is a little better off where it is now. just my 2 cents though

Zoolander
27-07-2010, 00:24
Because the game was won in the movement phase. It was the only aspect of the game that had no randomness to it (unless you were a spawn). Now, the entire game is random. Second, the randomness doesn't bother me as much in the magic phase because it's fluffly. It makes sense. Why do my men run 10" across the board each turn unerringly, but when they charge, it could 1" or it could be 17"? Seems a bit too random and silly. Maybe if 1d6 was added instead of two.

Let's not forget the simultaneous combats which take all the point of charging out of the game (unless you do impact hits). Played a game last night against an 8 year old in my league (don't ask). He wasn't very good, but for his age, he was doing well. In 7th he would have had no chance at beating me. I outmaneuvered him in every phase (except for my random doom wheel). I only beat him by 250 pts, thanks to initiative based combat. Thanks GW for taking all the skill out of the game! I didn't know we were playing a simple board game. I thought it was a war game that took some skill to play. My bad!

Omens
27-07-2010, 01:13
Face its not worth arguing with zoolander, no matter what people say hes going to continue thinking 8th has no skill.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
27-07-2010, 03:04
Because the game was won in the movement phase. It was the only aspect of the game that had no randomness to it (unless you were a spawn). Now, the entire game is random. Second, the randomness doesn't bother me as much in the magic phase because it's fluffly. It makes sense. Why do my men run 10" across the board each turn unerringly, but when they charge, it could 1" or it could be 17"? Seems a bit too random and silly. Maybe if 1d6 was added instead of two.

I play woodies, I ruled the movement phase :cool: But it always did seem odd that the one phase that was crucial to my army wasn't dependant on dice as opposed to other armies. The 2d6 is a little high in my book too, but it at least adds a little unpredictability to the game :)


[COLOR="Magenta"]Let's not forget the simultaneous combats which take all the point of charging out of the game (unless you do impact hits). Played a game last night against an 8 year old in my league (don't ask). He wasn't very good, but for his age, he was doing well. In 7th he would have had no chance at beating me. I outmaneuvered him in every phase (except for my random doom wheel). I only beat him by 250 pts, thanks to initiative based combat. Thanks GW for taking all the skill out of the game! I didn't know we were playing a simple board game. I thought it was a war game that took some skill to play. My bad!

Boo-hoo-hoo! If you can't stand getting beaten by 8-year olds, you shouldn't play them ;) Instead of lamenting the loss of charge based initiative, how about rejoicing that the I stat actually serves a purpose now, instead of combat just being decided by ASF and charges.

Warhammer isn't a war game. Its a game designed to give you a chance to showcase your models and have fun imagining glorious battles and immense slaughter and bloodletting.

Zoolander
27-07-2010, 04:48
I play woodies, I ruled the movement phase :cool: But it always did seem odd that the one phase that was crucial to my army wasn't dependant on dice as opposed to other armies. The 2d6 is a little high in my book too, but it at least adds a little unpredictability to the game :)



Boo-hoo-hoo! If you can't stand getting beaten by 8-year olds, you shouldn't play them ;) Instead of lamenting the loss of charge based initiative, how about rejoicing that the I stat actually serves a purpose now, instead of combat just being decided by ASF and charges.

Warhammer isn't a war game. Its a game designed to give you a chance to showcase your models and have fun imagining glorious battles and immense slaughter and bloodletting.

LOL I don't mind losing to 8 yr olds at all. I don't mind losing to anyone. I would prefer I lost to skill factor rather than random wackiness in the game. I'm not sure why that concept is so hard for people to grasp. I am glad Initiative actually has a purpose. But the way it was implemented was a terrible choice.

It's not all bad. I do like a lot of the changes in 8th. I like the new magic items, the new magic phase is more balanced and fun, the way they finally categorized units was smart, along with listed abilities so there's no wondering if a unit has an ability or not. I like what they did with fliers. I initially disliked the see-through forests, but have come to really like the idea that a goblin shaman can no longer hide in the woods safely. A BT can no longer hide behind a wood to avoid a cannonball. All good changes, IMO. My only real beef is the wacky movement (like I said, if it wasn't such a huge range, it might not be so bad, or if they had implemented a rule about rerolling charge distances if you made a LD check and had a musician or character in the unit or something), and the seemingly lack of point of charging. Remember, the last edition was all about maneuvering your units on the board to get the charge off against your opponent. That aspect of the game is gone, replaced much less tactically based movement. To me, this part of the game is way less fun.

And you are incorrect. This is a war game, not a miniatures showcase. It's even in the title of the book. The problem is that it's produced by a miniature making company that happens to have rules for a game rather than a game company that happens to produce miniatures.

And jesus, can't people complain about something without everyone crying whine! whine! Get a grip. This is a valid complaint, shared by many. Deal with it.

Blackknight1239
27-07-2010, 05:38
I guess I just don't understand people. I guess because I need no skill be cause of all the randomness, I'll take an entire army of 5 man cavalry, and keep charging the front of deeply steadfast units, and will all the time, because it's all random and no skill! Wheee!

billytheid
27-07-2010, 06:16
Warhammer for smart people you say? From a tactical perspective the game has been executed perfectly; make it child friendly with the introduction of dice-before-decision (combat, charge rolls) and the eye-of-god shooting (no more laughing at the little kid who hides his precious cannon behind a tree and then cries when he can't shoot anyone).

The tactics here are pretty obvious wouldn't you say? Looks like the classic 'get them when they're young, the fanatics will find a way to love it and the smarter older ones all end up playing cheapskate blood bowl anyway' attack. Mission accomplished it would seem

Lord of Divine Slaughter
27-07-2010, 07:17
LOL I don't mind losing to 8 yr olds at all.

Glad you didn't take offense to that one :angel:


I don't mind losing to anyone. I would prefer I lost to skill factor rather than random wackiness in the game. I'm not sure why that concept is so hard for people to grasp. I am glad Initiative actually has a purpose. But the way it was implemented was a terrible choice.

VC lord miscasting on turn 1, causing army to crumble. Random wackiness and all a part of 7th ed. :p


It's not all bad. I do like a lot of the changes in 8th. I like the new magic items, the new magic phase is more balanced and fun, the way they finally categorized units was smart, along with listed abilities so there's no wondering if a unit has an ability or not. I like what they did with fliers. I initially disliked the see-through forests, but have come to really like the idea that a goblin shaman can no longer hide in the woods safely. A BT can no longer hide behind a wood to avoid a cannonball. All good changes, IMO. My only real beef is the wacky movement (like I said, if it wasn't such a huge range, it might not be so bad, or if they had implemented a rule about rerolling charge distances if you made a LD check and had a musician or character in the unit or something), and the seemingly lack of point of charging. Remember, the last edition was all about maneuvering your units on the board to get the charge off against your opponent. That aspect of the game is gone, replaced much less tactically based movement. To me, this part of the game is way less fun.

I already agreed 2d6 has a very wide span - sprinting dwarves anyone? It isn't perfect, but I do find it a bit more interesting than 7th :)


And you are incorrect. This is a war game, not a miniatures showcase. It's even in the title of the book. The problem is that it's produced by a miniature making company that happens to have rules for a game rather than a game company that happens to produce miniatures.

Nope, it was designed to give people a purpose for using and displaying their minis, so they would buy more. Its a sales tool, nothing more - but a fun one ;)


And jesus, can't people complain about something without everyone crying whine! whine! Get a grip. This is a valid complaint, shared by many. Deal with it.

Quite simply, because you - and they - are quite wrong. Both players need to deal with the 'random wackiness', and this doesn't take either any less tactical 'skill', what it does is to add a chance of failure, so you need to build in fail safes to your tactics if you want reliability.

Chance of failure = challenge = need for thought :)

Dark Aly
27-07-2010, 07:22
Here is a thing for you all to try.

Go outside. Stand 4 feet (or 5 if you're quick on your toes) away from a fixed point.

Run forwards and time yourself.

How far do you get in 2 seconds?

You can easily clear 4 or 5 feet, but how far you run beyond that is entirely down to environment, the time of day, food intake, physical fitness and luck.

Welcome to 8th edition.

done that- tired now

Kal Taron
27-07-2010, 07:25
I have to say that some idea of 8th are good but in combination they seem a bit much. With a few houserules they should work though.

- 2D6 choose highest for infantry charges
- old fleeing/persuit movements
- base and unit type based LoS rules
- rework Lore of Life so that it works like the other Lores
- mysterious terrain stricly optional

This would reduce some of the whackiness a good deal.

Dark Aly
27-07-2010, 07:26
- rework Lore of Life so that it works like the other Lores
.

didn't understand this-but the rest made sense to me.

Lord Solar Plexus
27-07-2010, 07:30
I would prefer I lost to skill factor rather than random wackiness in the game. I'm not sure why that concept is so hard for people to grasp. I am glad Initiative actually has a purpose. But the way it was implemented was a terrible choice.


Initiative is not "random wackiness" and the way it is implemented is far from a "terrible choice". Some guys will be faster. You knew about this rule before the game but it appears you didn't take it into account. If as you claim you did outmaneouver your opponent, initiative can only matter if you didn't prepare for this rule.

yabbadabba
27-07-2010, 07:31
- mysterious terrain stricly optional It already is.

Dungeon_Lawyer
27-07-2010, 07:34
Warhammer for smart people you say? From a tactical perspective the game has been executed perfectly; make it child friendly with the introduction of dice-before-decision (combat, charge rolls) and the eye-of-god shooting (no more laughing at the little kid who hides his precious cannon behind a tree and then cries when he can't shoot anyone).

The tactics here are pretty obvious wouldn't you say? Looks like the classic 'get them when they're young, the fanatics will find a way to love it and the smarter older ones all end up playing cheapskate blood bowl anyway' attack. Mission accomplished it would seem

Exactly--the game is is way more child friendly and we all know children are awesome at tactics :rolleyes: yeah! The fanatics will swallow whatever GW shoves down their throats and force themselfs to like it no matterwhat...lol

Working on chaos dwarfs for blood bowl myself at the moment and looking forward to 9th. Im tired of these 8th edition blowouts. Just wait a few more months....gamers will come to their senses.

yabbadabba
27-07-2010, 07:38
Just wait a few more months....gamers will come to their senses. Or hopefully all the overly competitive tournament geeks will wander off somewhere else.

Anything is possible :evilgrin:

Kal Taron
27-07-2010, 09:19
didn't understand this-but the rest made sense to me.
The Lore of Life is the only lore that doesn't follow the new "boost spells" paradigm. Instead it has a single spell that boosts most of the others. To make the most of the lore you have to make sure that you get this spell. Which unfortunately WE can't. And it feels strange that a single lore differs so much.


It already is.
Depends on how you read the rules. They aren't exactly clear on it but RAW you have to roll IMO. Not that I expect many people to always play it that way.

yabbadabba
27-07-2010, 09:40
Depends on how you read the rules. And that is the problem with RAW, it is open to as much interpretation as RAI. According to Odin and Mr Miscast RAw gives you the choice. So, again its down to the common sense approach.

Gromdal
27-07-2010, 10:10
First of all a few years ago I made a topic here at warseer about the fact that GW had to fix warhammer.

My main points where.

-Faster games
-More death in battle (0 kills 25 black orcs just legs it because the others have a standard? and they are all killed without striking a blow?? run down? WTF fix)
-Less running away (stubborn ranks anyone?)
-More simple rules and more noob friendly.
-More focus on basic infantry troops

I said GW should do this because a) it would make the game better b) get more cash from a new inflow of players. Which would benefit us all (more opponents, more ppl that likes to play like you)

So after 8th edition I am partly impressed. GW has moved the game forward lightyears. Much more could have been done but compared to 7th its awesome.

Now ive got alot of stuff happening in my life so Im semi unactive atm when it comes to warhammer. But what I have done in 8th so far has been fun!

Lord of Divine Slaughter
27-07-2010, 10:38
The Lore of Life is the only lore that doesn't follow the new "boost spells" paradigm. Instead it has a single spell that boosts most of the others. To make the most of the lore you have to make sure that you get this spell. Which unfortunately WE can't. And it feels strange that a single lore differs so much.

Don't know about you, but I prefer casting spells that has an effect on the actual game, instead of just casting spells for the spells sake. When I see an opponent waste his PD on ToV, I rejoice and amass my remaining DD, for what could actually change the game. Also the difference between things like +2 or +4 toughness will be purely academical most times :)

Haravikk
27-07-2010, 10:48
I find things pretty tactical, there's no longer the slow grind until you're in charge range, the random charges are a wonderful addition as now you have to decide if you want to risk charging in the hopes that you roll well, or be more conservative if failing the charge might be dangerous.

I mean, randomness in Warhammer has always been both a blessing and a curse, but it's part of what makes it fun to play, sometimes even when you roll nothing but 1's! Randomness in terrain is an interesting one as you have to make tough choices about whether to risk going through or go around to avoid a possibly deadly forest.

Skill is all about knowing when and when not to take risks, otherwise as the OP points out all you're doing is basic logic. Sure taking risks might bite you in the ass and you'll suffer for over-thinking, but other times taking the right risks can really pay off. But more than that, a really good player will have units backing each other up, so if a risk doesn't pay off you can still make something of the situation.

Overall I'm really pleased with the direction of 8th edition, with the exception of some of the elements of magic (namely Purple Sun of Xereus seeing as how I'm a Dwarf player).

Kal Taron
27-07-2010, 11:44
Don't know about you, but I prefer casting spells that has an effect on the actual game, instead of just casting spells for the spells sake. When I see an opponent waste his PD on ToV, I rejoice and amass my remaining DD, for what could actually change the game. Also the difference between things like +2 or +4 toughness will be purely academical most times :)

I'm not arguing that ToV is too good or anything like that. My argument is that Lore of Life is significantly different to all other Lores for no apparent reason. Which is strange when 7 out of 8 Lores follow a common paradigm.

@yabbadabba
I'll look at the rules when I'm home again.

Cragum
27-07-2010, 12:05
it does if you have a speech impediment.

sir you just made me spit out my sandwich i was eating... :evilgrin:

that was a brilliant response to a serious matter.
but anyways my view on it is that there is always a matter of skill in any game, but at the same time theres more a skill about not being an **** and just making an overpowered army.

the 8th does seem to bring an interesting twist with randomosity, but i love it! we tried it where a set of trees moved around the battlefield on their own last night. it ended up being an annoyance for me and my ogres i must admit, but it was more interesting this time than a usual game.

the skill that is needed is just needing to know whats going to happen next. and unless your psychic then thats where the skill lies.

in my opinion anyways :evilgrin:

billytheid
28-07-2010, 00:48
My argument is that Lore of Life is significantly different to all other Lores for no apparent reason. Which is strange when 7 out of 8 Lores follow a common paradigm.


This is why Beastmen were turned into Bovine Orcs... I think you'll find that re-released army books under 8th will all end up following the same basic formula. The system will rely on the core rules to add distinctive elements to each game. Armies will really end up being of very similer composition with a few little unique 'quirks' to add 'flavor'.

It's only about selling toys to kids now folks, the more they need the better. That's the common paradigm.

barret4thewin
28-07-2010, 01:43
You all raise some very good points, no matter how much you nit pick each other you are playing a game that has had a massive overhaul. One of the things that annoyed me when i ran a tournament where the amount of people who assumed that a rule was the way it was due to the rules 'basically being the same as sixth'. Now i am not slating the last two editions. There are plenty of things that i love with all of them. But fantasy has, as has 40K, a fundamental problem. That is an unbalanced nature of the battle books.

I remember reading threads on this site stating how the beastmen 7th ed book was 'weaker' then most of the later 7th ed books. This is always a problem with a game of this style, it takes one book becoming more powerful then the others to take away some 'skill'.

This is where my overly belated point comes in :P. The release of 8 has allowed fantasy to gain a clean slate so to speak. The faq's, whilst not achieving this completely, have made older books perform much better on the battlefield. It has also given us more 'chance' as has been said before, tactics are how to adapt to better your opponent. The new charge rules have adapted this, but they gave you pre measuring to decide if your dwarf units really can charge 15''.

and finally, guys this is a discussion, so lets not diss on each others veiws.

Billy
28-07-2010, 03:15
imm A smrt perzon! I'z wants to playy warhammerers sooe bad!

peterburstrom
28-07-2010, 04:12
The Lore of Life is the only lore that doesn't follow the new "boost spells" paradigm. Instead it has a single spell that boosts most of the others. To make the most of the lore you have to make sure that you get this spell. Which unfortunately WE can't. And it feels strange that a single lore differs so much.


I'm not sure if I misread you here, but there are no limit to which spells the Weaver might roll, is there? I never used lore of life with them, sticking to the athel loren kind instead, but I can't recall any limitation of that kind. Or did you mean that Wood Elves cannot guarantee that the weaver does get it?

My maths are a bit hazy, but if I'm correct, the chances for getting it for a level 4 are actually quite overwhelming. Since you get to choose any spell if you roll a double, there is a very small possibility of 4 separate dice rolls not being a double or a 6. 80/1296 I think, or about 6% risk. Sure, that is your most important game. So bring a level 2 as well, which lowers the risk to 0%.

Thorgrimm14
28-07-2010, 04:16
Yeah it makes sense that on a windy day a Dwarf can now run 15 inches or 2 1/2 times their old charge range.


We dwarves are natural sprinters. Very dangerous over short distances! :evilgrin:

Now where did I put my Great Hammer?

Lord of Divine Slaughter
28-07-2010, 04:54
So bring a level 2 as well, which lowers the risk to 0%.

Really no reason to bring a lvl 2 just to cheat, those points could be spent better elsewhere ;)

Kal Taron
28-07-2010, 08:45
I'm not sure if I misread you here, but there are no limit to which spells the Weaver might roll, is there? I never used lore of life with them, sticking to the athel loren kind instead, but I can't recall any limitation of that kind. Or did you mean that Wood Elves cannot guarantee that the weaver does get it?

My maths are a bit hazy, but if I'm correct, the chances for getting it for a level 4 are actually quite overwhelming. Since you get to choose any spell if you roll a double, there is a very small possibility of 4 separate dice rolls not being a double or a 6. 80/1296 I think, or about 6% risk. Sure, that is your most important game. So bring a level 2 as well, which lowers the risk to 0%.

Yes I meant that we can't guarantee the spell. Sure, chances are good and even without ToV the lore is good.
Taking a lvl2 won't help at all.
1) He can't take Life.
2) Even if he could how would that help? If you roll the Lvl4 first you have the exact same chance of getting ToV. If you roll the Lvl2 first he might get ToV and not profit much from it. Or he may not and the Lvl4 has still the same chance of getting but may now waste some of his rolls on spells he can't get anymore...
Taking several mages with the same lore isn't very good unless they are all low level (to spam Fire or Light for example) or you can "give" them spells and therefore ignore the spell selection rules.

Still, my point was that I don't like that only Life can't "upgrade" spells but has a single (very good) boost spell instead.

peterburstrom
28-07-2010, 12:26
Oh yeah, level 2:s can't get it. Sorry for that. My point still stands though.

Kal Taron
28-07-2010, 23:06
Which point? That a Lvl4 has a good chance to get it? I agree with that. But a good chance is still far different from the 100% "chance" some armies can have. And if the effectiveness of your lvl4 investment hinges on getting a certain spell, less than 100% can be too low after all.

peterburstrom
29-07-2010, 22:14
Nah, it is a 6% chance of the level 4 being slightly less useful than otherwise. Even then, the weaver can deliver things like +2 toughness to bring the dryads to 6 with a 5+ ward, apart from being one of the baddest antimagicians of the 8th edition equipped with the mandatory wand of wych elm.

stashman
29-07-2010, 22:27
You need guts and courage! You have to be daredevil.

Charge or no charge! Do you trust your dice?

With all new terraineffects I think tactics will be a whole new outcome of the game. Do I dare to enter the forest? Is it worth charging thru marshland with my cavalry? Shall I keep my troops safe in the building?

I think the skill will be in the stomach, dare or not! Big win or hard loss!

I have only played 2 games so far, but I love the 8th edition, and I'm looking at the game with a NEW VISION, and not comparing it with 7th. Why even compare it?

Just play 8th as it should be played, skills or not.

7th was about range and a good measuring with your eyes.

8th is about HAVING FUN!!!

As someone said: Bring it on! ;)

Tactical Retreat!
29-07-2010, 22:36
You need guts and courage! You have to be daredevil.

Charge or no charge! Do you trust your dice?

With all new terraineffects I think tactics will be a whole new outcome of the game. Do I dare to enter the forest? Is it worth charging thru marshland with my cavalry? Shall I keep my troops safe in the building?

I think the skill will be in the stomach, dare or not! Big win or hard loss!

I have only played 2 games so far, but I love the 8th edition, and I'm looking at the game with a NEW VISION, and not comparing it with 7th. Why even compare it?

Just play 8th as it should be played, skills or not.

7th was about range and a good measuring with your eyes.

8th is about HAVING FUN!!!

As someone said: Bring it on! ;)

8th Edition: Not for the Weak or Fainthearted

Heimagoblin
29-07-2010, 22:38
I am certainly finding 8 th ed as tactical as 7th edition. The only difference seems to be that in 8th you have to use proper tactics instead of mathamatical calculations and the judging of angles although these things are still important to a degree. I can still steemroller any player who isn't as as good as me and still draw against a better player than me (but he was using tomb kings and that was the same in 7th right!) and do stuff like refused flanks and the like. Also, the magic phase is alot of fun and far more balanced, at least in most scenerio's and barring things like focus ruminatio and master of the black arts.

Zoolander
29-07-2010, 23:20
"Proper tactics"? LOL. Like...? And judging distances, setting up charges and refusing flanks are more tactical IMO than charging and hoping you roll well with your 30 attacks. But to each his own.

I agree with whoever mentioned icky terrain rules. When 6/10 pieces of terrain are man eating swamps, forests, and pits of death, there is something wrong. 2/10 should be wild and magical, the rest normal terrain, IMO. Tuesday I lost 21/34 models in a unit because I was forced to deploy on the far left corner of the table (scenario 2), and a river of boiling blood burned them to death. My opponent had the same thing happen to him when 1/2 of his Horrors got zapped by a pool of light on his side of the table. A forest ate 6/10 gutterrunners and a haunted house blew up 2/5 mounted slaanesh, among other things.

I'm all for some wacky terrain here and there, but the when the terrain is killing your units faster then your enemy, it may be a bit much (just like 2d6 for charging distance... a good rule that was probably taken too far). I just can't take the game seriously anymore. Now it's just comical watching the innane ways my units die and move. It's a comic pinata! :D

WarmbloodedLizard
29-07-2010, 23:26
The people that are saying "randomness = skill" are not seeing the whole picture. It's true, a small amount of randomness does make a general compensate for a lack of certainty. That is part of the fun in WHFB. However, the more random it becomes, the less the game relies on your skill to win as opposed to good die rolling. 8th ed = more randomness, less skill involved.

this is just such an extremely obvious fact that I really can't understand people claiming the opposite.

if you roll 1 die, it's completely random. if you roll 2 or more dice, it starts to become somewhat calculable. only from a certain number of dice can you make more precise deductions. (e.g. 2D6 --> expecting anything above 6 is pretty much building on luck.) only when many dice are rolled, such as CC or shooting with Archers, does the outcome become more predictable and useful, making skill a more important factor.


no matter what any of the yay-sayers say:
8th requires less skill than 7th. it may only be by small margin, but it still does.

e.g. when in 7th, a player with skill level 8 (I know it sounds silly) played against a player with skill level 6, he won 80% of the time. now with 8th, this win ratio might have fallen to 70%. That's not something you will notice without keeping track of all your games. Just because you don't feel that 8th requries less skill doesn't mean that it doesn't.

WarmbloodedLizard
29-07-2010, 23:29
You need guts and courage! You have to be daredevil.

Charge or no charge! Do you trust your dice?

With all new terraineffects I think tactics will be a whole new outcome of the game. Do I dare to enter the forest? Is it worth charging thru marshland with my cavalry? Shall I keep my troops safe in the building?

I think the skill will be in the stomach, dare or not! Big win or hard loss!

I have only played 2 games so far, but I love the 8th edition, and I'm looking at the game with a NEW VISION, and not comparing it with 7th. Why even compare it?

Just play 8th as it should be played, skills or not.

7th was about range and a good measuring with your eyes.

8th is about HAVING FUN!!!

As someone said: Bring it on! ;)


finally! a game for republicans!

willowdark
29-07-2010, 23:40
Proper tactics are feigned flight, redirecting and march blocking. They can be called by name, the definition of proper.

They have also been hugely devalued. Whether 8th is more or less tactical is a matter of academic distinction, but whatever you say the tactics are much more vague, not proper.

Havock
30-07-2010, 05:24
The game hjas more or less stayed the same, you win some, you lose some.

What I dislike is the third rate citizenship given to non-shooting (or, non dark rider/pistollier) fast cav.

It's the classic GW 'pendulum of balance-swing'.

Fleeing, redirecting and avoiding is dead.

frapermax
30-07-2010, 06:38
I like 8th so far. I liked 7th too, with one exception. The games where the so called "skilled" players took away the challenge by using one of the 10 or 20 "top" lists against a fluff army. I don't mind the game not being balanced, but I never, ever saw these "skilled" players tone down their list to make a game a challenge. To me that tells us much about that "skill", copy paste an uberlist and run the program that goes with it. Luckily we are only talking about 1-5% of the actual players of the game and most of those play in tournaments. They will still be there in 8th and now they will have an excuse if they should lose, so good for them.

For me the game is more like a fun, challenging exercise in thinking on the run. A kind of puzzle with a nice story afterwards. You try and come up with solutions to problems presented on the board. Some solutions work, some don't, some might just work with a bit of luck. To me the bigger variety of puzzles 8th ed offers, is more fun. If sometimes (I guess about 1 game in 20) some outrageous rolling will decide a game against the odds, I can easily live with that. It's good for anekdotes, stories, jokes etc...
There are some really good ideas/options in the 8th ed book, the puzzle gets better imo and there are a lot more options. I will still play it.
just my 2 cents
FPM

Remadia
30-07-2010, 07:39
I agree the key difference is that WFB is fun again!

Embalmed
30-07-2010, 10:49
Haven't read all the posts, however I agree by and large with OP.

Also the greater number of dice rolls you get the less chance actually matters in the end, sure you may be cursed when rolling a few charges, but to be cursed with that AND combats AND magic all the game through is very unlikely. With a very few dice rolls it may seem that there is less chance in the game but actually the odds that the dice will heavily favor one player over another are much greater.

I agree about 7th being in a state where you can count on a chain of events unfolding in a certain way and that ruins the skill element to an extent. With the chess analogy, in chess there are a number of "openings" that require no skill, all you have to do is learn them and play them. After that it's up to skill.

It's to an extent the same with 7th, my opponent can KNOW that his charge will hit home and that my unit WILL break and then he WILL be able to overrun into my next unit and from there charge so and so and it can be quite frustrating because you know it's going to happen 3 moves in advance almost like it's choreographed, and this situation was quite common back then, particularly with units such as heavy cavalry.

Heimagoblin
30-07-2010, 11:08
"Proper tactics"? LOL. Like...? And judging distances, setting up charges and refusing flanks are more tactical IMO than charging and hoping you roll well with your 30 attacks."

Judging distances is now represented by how likely you are to reach your target and judging distances is certainly not a tactic, its a mathamatical skill. You do not need tactical knowledge to be able to tell how far away something is. As for refused flanks, I played a game yesterday where I used this and it worked perfectly fine and the game was really more realistic about the amount of time I got to wipe my opponents flank before his centre came crashing through.

The proper battlefield tactics used by proper generals are much more viable in 8th ed than in 7th because your battleine tends to last longer than 1 turn if facing smaller numbers of elite opponents. So, this is why I believe this game requires less skill but more tactics.

WarmbloodedLizard
30-07-2010, 11:25
Also the greater number of dice rolls you get the less chance actually matters in the end, sure you may be cursed when rolling a few charges, but to be cursed with that AND combats AND magic all the game through is very unlikely. With a very few dice rolls it may seem that there is less chance in the game but actually the odds that the dice will heavily favor one player over another are much greater.

that's a pretty strong fallacy right there. you cannot just combine the phases. you need to lookat the dice rolls that belong together. you can look at to hit, to wound, and saving throws together, but you cannot put charging dice together with a casting attempt, it's just not how it works. you may absolutely need that charge but don't need the spell all that much or even when comparing two charges: if you roll more dice total during a game, of course, the rolls well be more average. however, you need to look at the separate events to analyze chance. you cannot just lump everything together.

freddieyu
30-07-2010, 12:36
Haven't read all the posts, however I agree by and large with OP.

Also the greater number of dice rolls you get the less chance actually matters in the end, sure you may be cursed when rolling a few charges, but to be cursed with that AND combats AND magic all the game through is very unlikely. With a very few dice rolls it may seem that there is less chance in the game but actually the odds that the dice will heavily favor one player over another are much greater.

I agree about 7th being in a state where you can count on a chain of events unfolding in a certain way and that ruins the skill element to an extent. With the chess analogy, in chess there are a number of "openings" that require no skill, all you have to do is learn them and play them. After that it's up to skill.

It's to an extent the same with 7th, my opponent can KNOW that his charge will hit home and that my unit WILL break and then he WILL be able to overrun into my next unit and from there charge so and so and it can be quite frustrating because you know it's going to happen 3 moves in advance almost like it's choreographed, and this situation was quite common back then, particularly with units such as heavy cavalry.

and this is just plain boring...

willowdark
30-07-2010, 12:44
Certainty of outcome still exists in 8th. Combat is heavily biased towards high Toughness, good save, multi attack troops. They're the new heavy cavalry, the new black. Armies that can max out on these troops have the same advantage cav armies had in 7th. The only difference is that combat lasts longer so that units that fight their way out of one combat usually aren't strong enough to contribute to another.

Unlike 7th when you'd have a handful of minor combats early, that resolved decisively and lead directly to a converging critical combat late.

8th might be more cinematic, and I'll give you that, but 7th had a lot of depth because you could count on resolving one comat quickly and moving on to the next, in an escalating scale of importance.

freddieyu
30-07-2010, 12:47
Certainty of outcome still exists in 8th. Combat is heavily biased towards high Toughness, good save, multi attack troops. They're the new heavy cavalry, the new black. Armies that can max out on these troops have the same advantage cav armies had in 7th. The only difference is that combat lasts longer so that units that fight their way out of one combat usually aren't strong enough to contribute to another.

Unlike 7th when you'd have a handful of minor combats early, that resolved decisively and lead directly to a converging critical combat late.

8th might be more cinematic, and I'll give you that, but 7th had a lot of depth because you could count on resolving one comat quickly and moving on to the next, in an escalating scale of importance.

Except that these are expensive, and will not be too many on the battlefield, and can be locked in by dirt cheap steadfast unit like skavenslaves.

Nope I think the outcome is not as certain as you think....and T and other characterstics can be buffed up..there are a LOT of augments in this new edition....

willowdark
30-07-2010, 12:50
And heavy cav could be redirected in 7th, so the outcome wasn't so certain then either.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
30-07-2010, 12:58
And heavy cav could be redirected in 7th, so the outcome wasn't so certain then either.

Bah.. For 200 years no army have withstood the charge of heavy cavalry ;)

willowdark
30-07-2010, 13:07
No army without Eagles, skirmishers, fast cav or cheap, expendible infantry.

JonnyTHM
30-07-2010, 13:23
Yes I meant that we can't guarantee the spell. Sure, chances are good and even without ToV the lore is good.
Taking a lvl2 won't help at all.
1) He can't take Life.
2) Even if he could how would that help? If you roll the Lvl4 first you have the exact same chance of getting ToV. If you roll the Lvl2 first he might get ToV and not profit much from it. Or he may not and the Lvl4 has still the same chance of getting but may now waste some of his rolls on spells he can't get anymore...
Taking several mages with the same lore isn't very good unless they are all low level (to spam Fire or Light for example) or you can "give" them spells and therefore ignore the spell selection rules.

Still, my point was that I don't like that only Life can't "upgrade" spells but has a single (very good) boost spell instead.

I know I'm dragging slightly off topic, but I feel a compulsion to correct point '2' here.

If you have a level 2 and a level 4 rolling on the lore of life, and you have the level 2 roll first, there are 3 scenarios

Scenario 1) You've rolled 2 different spells (we'll call them spells a and b), neither of which are throne of vines. You then roll your spells for your level 4 wizard. If you roll the four other spells (including throne of vines), you're finished or can drop one down to the signature. If you roll one (or both) of a and b, you get to CHOOSE a replacement for it, which would guarantee you you get Throne of vines. Result: you got throne of vines!

Scenario 2) You've rolled the same spell twice (not throne of vines). You get to choose what spell to replace one of them with (hint: here you don't want to choose throne of vines), and you're back to scenario 1.

Scenario 3) You rolled throne of vines (once or twice). If you rolled it twice, you get to replace one of them with another spell of your choice - so it's the same as having only rolled it once. Now you drop throne of vines down to the signature spell. You've only taken up one lore of life spell with your level 2! This means that you still have a (very) small chance of not getting throne of vines on your level 4. To do that you need to roll exactly: the 4 spells that you don't have already that aren't throne of vines. There are 24 ways of doing this (i.e. 24 ways to order the dice), out of a total 1296 configurations of the dice. So, you have a 1.85% chance of not getting throne of vines... but that's only if you already reached scenario 3. The probability of scenario 3 occurring is 11/36, which gives a 0.5% chance of not getting throne of vines on your level 4.


0.5% =/= ~6%

Doing this is good, UNLESS you obey the spell selection rules (by that I don't mean that you have loremaster, I mean that you don't read the rules), not the other way around.

peterburstrom
31-07-2010, 00:12
Whoa. Good numbers there. Taking a lvl 2 wizard, also with lore of life, even seems like a fairly decent option compared to loremaster skills, at least every now and then.

Petey
31-07-2010, 05:34
Bah.. For 200 years no army have withstood the charge of heavy cavalry ;)

But you know, before and after that period, heavy cav was relegated to support only. Even Alex the great used cav to support phalanxs. So yeah, if heavy cav of brets is the greatest cav in the game, I can get behind that. Everyone else should suck it up.

Kal Taron
31-07-2010, 08:28
@JohnnyTHM
I think you're right on this. Particularly after reading the English rules. Blame the German version for being so confusing and imprecise.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
31-07-2010, 09:04
But you know, before and after that period, heavy cav was relegated to support only. Even Alex the great used cav to support phalanxs. So yeah, if heavy cav of brets is the greatest cav in the game, I can get behind that. Everyone else should suck it up.

Exactly my point in bringing in that wonderful little Braveheart quote:

Things change, deal with it ;)

-

Now to soften this up, I'd like to point out that there are several ways to deal with this.

You can either go on and play 8th and have loads of fun complaining over the soddy rules.

Pick up the challenge.

Convince your playmates that 7th indeed was the epitome of fantasy battle and keep on playing it, while perhaps developing house rules, or even integrating, what you recognize as the good elements of 8th/4th or even Scrabble.

Or just shelve your minis and wait four years for GW to possibly have a renaissance and revive the golden years of 7th with the release of 9th.

Crovax20
31-07-2010, 09:35
I love all this random crying

Random this
Random that

Random charges, are not bad at all. With the change in combat mechanics I think some of you lot are just going over the top with the whining. Wooptiedoo you get +1 CR! Which doesn't really have much of the same impact as striking first and not getting strikes back in 7th had.

The game isn't a I charge you, you will not attack back because I wipe your front and win combat. I run you down.

The game is now, I charge you, both sides inflict casualties and there is a good chance the loosing side stays in combat, so that you can now tactically bring your other assets in to assist that combat by doing flank charges etc to put further punishment on the unit and break it.

Ugh, why do I even bother with all these nay sayers.

Bassik
31-07-2010, 10:21
I do find it significant that our club embraced the new edition, now everybody plays fantasy, in a club that was dominated by 40K. Me included, we all play for fun, to show off our models, have a laugh and a beer.

mooze
31-07-2010, 12:32
A long time ago, in a gw designer office far, far away there was...
wait for it... wait... Warhammer 40,000!!!
(prior to the infiltration of the nefarious "K")

Now warhammer in its early days had a lot of complexity to the rules. Tanks actually had facing rules and there were very few "stack the deck in your favor, roll lots o' dice, win game, vaunt at your "tactical" acumen" types of builds.
Unfortunately, GW is a business whose aim is profit (can't fault them for that, enough profit keeps you knee deep in beer, pretzels, and loose (or not) women).
So they simplified 40,000 (even simplified to a more colloquial 40k, though not officially) Then they did it again, and again, and began making the "Kill everything simply because you spent loot on a new army" type of codex. They wanted the 8-15 yr. old crowd who have access to Mom's credit card. I stopped playing 40k because it just got foolish. Does this description resemble WHFB in the second half of 7th and now 8th? I think so. WHFB used to be the complicated veteran gamer game and 40K was for the kids. Now with the power surge (not creep) armies and the foolishly simplified rules the pendulum has swung the other way. When you do away with range guessing and taking advantage of outmaneuvering your opponent in favor of just rolling dice how do you equate that with skill? It's simplified for the kids so as to improve market share. If I walk out with 20 khornate warriors I want you to outmaneuver me and hit me in both flanks. Then I can butcher you in three directions rather than just one. Wow, I am so skilled! Von Clausewitz forgot to write a chapter on not ever knowing what will happen so that planning is nigh irrelevant. What a fool! Sun Tzu missed this "tactical" wonder also as did Frederick the Great. Buffoons the lot o' them! It took the 21st century and a game to finally, clearly define the appropriate way to win battles, honor, renown, and the lusty attention of women: "Wander towards the enemy, after first creating the most abusive army roster imaginable then pray for luck." If only Napoleon, Caesar, and Alexander had known this. If Lord Cornwallis had understood this military truism, in America we'd all be speaking English right now.

chamelion 6
31-07-2010, 15:42
A long time ago, in a gw designer office far, far away there was...
wait for it... wait... Warhammer 40,000!!!
(prior to the infiltration of the nefarious "K")

Now warhammer in its early days had a lot of complexity to the rules. Tanks actually had facing rules and there were very few "stack the deck in your favor, roll lots o' dice, win game, vaunt at your "tactical" acumen" types of builds.
Unfortunately, GW is a business whose aim is profit (can't fault them for that, enough profit keeps you knee deep in beer, pretzels, and loose (or not) women).
So they simplified 40,000 (even simplified to a more colloquial 40k, though not officially) Then they did it again, and again, and began making the "Kill everything simply because you spent loot on a new army" type of codex. They wanted the 8-15 yr. old crowd who have access to Mom's credit card. I stopped playing 40k because it just got foolish. Does this description resemble WHFB in the second half of 7th and now 8th? I think so. WHFB used to be the complicated veteran gamer game and 40K was for the kids. Now with the power surge (not creep) armies and the foolishly simplified rules the pendulum has swung the other way. When you do away with range guessing and taking advantage of outmaneuvering your opponent in favor of just rolling dice how do you equate that with skill? It's simplified for the kids so as to improve market share. If I walk out with 20 khornate warriors I want you to outmaneuver me and hit me in both flanks. Then I can butcher you in three directions rather than just one. Wow, I am so skilled! Von Clausewitz forgot to write a chapter on not ever knowing what will happen so that planning is nigh irrelevant. What a fool! Sun Tzu missed this "tactical" wonder also as did Frederick the Great. Buffoons the lot o' them! It took the 21st century and a game to finally, clearly define the appropriate way to win battles, honor, renown, and the lusty attention of women: "Wander towards the enemy, after first creating the most abusive army roster imaginable then pray for luck." If only Napoleon, Caesar, and Alexander had known this. If Lord Cornwallis had understood this military truism, in America we'd all be speaking English right now.

Your playing a game with orcs and goblins, vampires, and elves.... WTF does that have to do with Napoleon, Fredrich the Great, and Alexander...

There are plenty of "grown up" rules for the campaigns of each of these guys.

But remember what Hemmingway said to Faulkner... "Does he really think big emotions come from big words?" Complex rules don't make tactically complex games. Neither 40K nor WFB are currently lacking in tactical complexity.

Kal Taron
31-07-2010, 18:58
Random charges, are not bad at all. With the change in combat mechanics I think some of you lot are just going over the top with the whining. Wooptiedoo you get +1 CR! Which doesn't really have much of the same impact as striking first and not getting strikes back in 7th had.

The game isn't a I charge you, you will not attack back because I wipe your front and win combat. I run you down.
This is only true if you look at 1on1 situations and troops without charge bonuses. In these it is truly not really important who gets the charge and the randomness of it pretty much only affects how many turns of magic/shooting you get.
The situation changes a lot if your units depend on getting the charge. Bretonians are probably the worst example but most other cavalry fits as well. Ogres and Wardancers too.

When the random charges really suck is when you try to pull of combo charges because the more units charge, the more likely that some of them won't make it. So it is a bad idea to have multiple (CC) units support each other because they can't do so in a reliable way. As a result it's often better to rely on large self-dependant units. Which leads to pretty boring armies and playstyles IMO.

Zoolander
01-08-2010, 02:14
I agree the key difference is that WFB is fun again!

WHFB has always been fun. The problems with the game were mostly caused by the army books not the rules, and 8th does little to change that.


I love all this random crying

Random this
Random that

Random charges, are not bad at all. With the change in combat mechanics I think some of you lot are just going over the top with the whining. Wooptiedoo you get +1 CR! Which doesn't really have much of the same impact as striking first and not getting strikes back in 7th had.

The game isn't a I charge you, you will not attack back because I wipe your front and win combat. I run you down.

The game is now, I charge you, both sides inflict casualties and there is a good chance the loosing side stays in combat, so that you can now tactically bring your other assets in to assist that combat by doing flank charges etc to put further punishment on the unit and break it.

Ugh, why do I even bother with all these nay sayers.

I don't know why either especially since you fail to understand the complexity of the old rules. The game is now I charge you or you charge me since it rarely matters and we both roll a crapload of dice to determine who has more skill. As opposed to using actual tactics.

You could argue that 8th is more fun. To each his own. But to say it requires more tactics or skill displays a lack of experience and/or knowledge about the game. That doesn't make the game better or worse than 7th in and of itself. Each person has their own preferences.

B-ROCK
01-08-2010, 02:17
8th edition does becuz it still goes back to basic tactics and list building

Justicar_Freezer
01-08-2010, 03:19
I had my first game of 8th last night and since I didn't want to make a new thread about it I thought I'd put my comments here.

First of all since it was our first game I'm sure we missed some of the new rules and we didn't use the % system for army comp we just used the slot system from 7th for ease.

My overall reaction to the new system is I didn't like it. I was playing dark elves. My khaine themed list which consisted of the following.
1 Dreadlord with the hyrda blade, blood armor, ring of darkness, sea dragon cloak, and repeater hand Xbow.
1 Dreadlord with the Crimson Death, the Regen Armor, and the pendent of kaleth.
1 Sorceress with the tome of furion and a dispell scroll
1 Sorceress with Life taker
3 units of 20 spearmen with full command.
2 units of 10 repeater Xbowmen with full command
1 unit of 39 witches with full command (Made a horde out of two units simply to test the horde rule out. This unit was really deadly)
1 unit of 20 Executioners with the War Banner.
3X assassins
Also since I had to add points to get up to 4000pts I added the following.
1 Supreme Sorceress with the talismin of preservation, the srcoll of leeching, and the blade of the tormentor.
1 Hag Battle Standard bearer with the hydra banner which went into the witch horde
1 unit of 5 cold one knights with the terror causing banner and a sword of battle on the champion.

I went up against an addmitedly weak Ogre army and an interesting Empire army.

I found the movement phase at least for me was really boring. Since I would be going first most of the time rather I charged or not due to my high I score I really didn't move much out of my battle line. Also where in 7th I could look 1 or 2 turns ahead knowing where things might be to plan accordingly I couldn't in 8th. I know some people think this is good...I personally don't like it.

The magic phase was interesting. The new lores are cool but some of the big spells are just to powerful. I like the way you get dice but I hope we were doing channeling wrong because if you only roll one die for each of your wizards to try and get an extra die I don't like it. I'd rather it be challenling gives you half your level in casting/dispell dice or you roll a die for each level you have.

Shooting. Here's where I was really kind of let down. I think the no partials is a bad idea giving a big bonus to the armies like empire, dwarves, and O&Gs that can throw out alot of templates. Being able to fire in two ranks rather on a hill or not didn't really seem that big to me. Didn't really like the loss of having to guess range either.

Close Combat phase. This felt to much like the close combat phase of 40k to me. Rolling way to many dice and just taking off handfuls of guys. Maybe it was just me but I liked having to rely on static combet res to win combats instead of massive units. I mean I overran with my witch horde into a unit of Yhettes, was counter charged by two units of lead belchers and still ended up winning the combat despite being flanked. Seemed a bit off to me. Also seeing a unit of 10 empire knights slam into one of my spearman blocks and just bounce off seemed wrong as well.

So I don't know if it's for smart people or not. I mean it is a game after all. What I can say from my first experience is I am not impressed. I think it still has tactics and skill just they are much different now then they were in 7th which some will be happy with and others won't be happy with. I can say I'll keep playing 8th cause some in my gaming group like the "epic amounts of death." But I think my best friend and I shall be sticking to 7th or just splicing 7th and 8th together to get the game we want.

Aluinn
01-08-2010, 03:27
This is only true if you look at 1on1 situations and troops without charge bonuses. In these it is truly not really important who gets the charge and the randomness of it pretty much only affects how many turns of magic/shooting you get.
The situation changes a lot if your units depend on getting the charge. Bretonians are probably the worst example but most other cavalry fits as well. Ogres and Wardancers too.

When the random charges really suck is when you try to pull of combo charges because the more units charge, the more likely that some of them won't make it. So it is a bad idea to have multiple (CC) units support each other because they can't do so in a reliable way. As a result it's often better to rely on large self-dependant units. Which leads to pretty boring armies and playstyles IMO.

You don't have to execute multiple charges against an enemy unit in the same turn to have multiple combat units supporting each other, because very few units break in one round of combat, or even two, in 8th. It's perfectly acceptable to use hammer-and-anvil tactics wherein the anvil is subjected to a few more beats before the hammer can sweep in and save the day, because the rules made units more resilient--not to casualties, but to breaking.

I find that any time you're not relying on some all-destroying, 1,600-point Horde unit of doom in 8th, it is quite essential to have multiple units backing each other up, but they need to have clearly designated roles and be built to their purpose, and they also need to be positioned and maneuvered appropriately with respect to that. When done right this allows you to gain quite an edge over the alleged "power builds" consisting of three Hordes, a wizard, a BSB, and nothing else worth mentioning.

I can see why armies like that make people think 8th is dumbed-down, but IMO they're actually just the result of uncreative players drawing only the most obvious of conclusions from the rules changes and designing armies to take advantage of those factors, but nothing else. (Those being: "Infantry got better", "Cavalry got a bit worse", and "Magic is potentially more destructive", in this case, which I'm pretty sure everyone had figured out around three months before 8th was even released.) They may continue to garner wins for a while as everyone works to figure out the new rules, if mostly by points denial, but a year from now I think this will be a very rare type of list.

I used to be concerned about this, myself, until I realized how horrible the huge units were in terms of points efficiency compared to multiple, smaller (not small, of course, at least not most of them) units supporting each other.

Now I realize there is more concern out there about 8th than boring army lists, but I think they are at the root of a lot of the complaints that have arisen since the release. I'm optimistic about it not being a long-term problem, though.

Dungeon_Lawyer
01-08-2010, 03:59
I found the movement phase at least for me was really boring. Since I would be going first most of the time rather I charged or not due to my high I score I really didn't move much out of my battle line. Also where in 7th I could look 1 or 2 turns ahead knowing where things might be to plan accordingly I couldn't in 8th. I know some people think this is good...I personally don't like it.

The magic phase was interesting. The new lores are cool but some of the big spells are just to powerful. I like the way you get dice but I hope we were doing channeling wrong because if you only roll one die for each of your wizards to try and get an extra die I don't like it. I'd rather it be challenling gives you half your level in casting/dispell dice or you roll a die for each level you have.

Shooting. Here's where I was really kind of let down. I think the no partials is a bad idea giving a big bonus to the armies like empire, dwarves, and O&Gs that can throw out alot of templates. Being able to fire in two ranks rather on a hill or not didn't really seem that big to me. Didn't really like the loss of having to guess range either.

Close Combat phase. This felt to much like the close combat phase of 40k to me. Rolling way to many dice and just taking off handfuls of guys. Maybe it was just me but I liked having to rely on static combet res to win combats instead of massive units. I mean I overran with my witch horde into a unit of Yhettes, was counter charged by two units of lead belchers and still ended up winning the combat despite being flanked. Seemed a bit off to me. Also seeing a unit of 10 empire knights slam into one of my spearman blocks and just bounce off seemed wrong as well.

So I don't know if it's for smart people or not. I mean it is a game after all. What I can say from my first experience is I am not impressed. .

You summed it up perfectly--Fantasy used to be the game for vets looking for a challenge, now its a game for kids. Some people like that some people dont--I think it sucks.

chamelion 6
01-08-2010, 08:12
You summed it up perfectly--Fantasy used to be the game for vets looking for a challenge, now its a game for kids. Some people like that some people dont--I think it sucks.

Guess it's just me 'n the kids then...

I think it was this kinda attitude that made 6th and 7th such a drudge fest. People take their little plastic orcs and elves a little too seriously sometimes.

:shifty:

Heimagoblin
01-08-2010, 09:09
You summed it up perfectly--Fantasy used to be the game for vets looking for a challenge, now its a game for kids. Some people like that some people dont--I think it sucks.

Then what are you still doing on a warhammer fantasy forum? Is it just to try to convince the rest of us to stop?

Kal Taron
01-08-2010, 09:20
@Aluinn
I may be biased because I play WE. Ganging up with multiple units was the way the army worked and what made it fun and challenging. Needing big units that survive a turn or two even if caught on the wrong foot because your enemy was lucky kind of sucks and makes for boring army lists IMO.

IMO they finally had the army pinned down very well in 6th and the beginning of 7th (before the **** hit the fan). Practically all our shock troops were ItP so we had to be very careful with how to move them because the couldn't flee a charge. This meant that you couldn't bait and flee with many of your units and you had to be very careful because almost no unit could handle a charge on its own. Now you NEED units that can do this... Meh.

Heimagoblin
01-08-2010, 09:25
I found the movement phase at least for me was really boring. Since I would be going first most of the time rather I charged or not due to my high I score I really didn't move much out of my battle line. Also where in 7th I could look 1 or 2 turns ahead knowing where things might be to plan accordingly I couldn't in 8th. I know some people think this is good...I personally don't like it.

This might change depeding on what army you go up against and presumbly you still had to do some manouvering. I would put this down to you using a decent amount of ranged troupes and your opponents using alot less.

The magic phase was interesting. The new lores are cool but some of the big spells are just to powerful. I like the way you get dice but I hope we were doing channeling wrong because if you only roll one die for each of your wizards to try and get an extra die I don't like it. I'd rather it be challenling gives you half your level in casting/dispell dice or you roll a die for each level you have.

The big spells themselves are not the problem, its the fact that the miscast table isn't as bad as it should be.

Shooting. Here's where I was really kind of let down. I think the no partials is a bad idea giving a big bonus to the armies like empire, dwarves, and O&Gs that can throw out alot of templates. Being able to fire in two ranks rather on a hill or not didn't really seem that big to me. Didn't really like the loss of having to guess range either.

No comment or disagrement from me here.

Close Combat phase. This felt to much like the close combat phase of 40k to me. Rolling way to many dice and just taking off handfuls of guys. Maybe it was just me but I liked having to rely on static combet res to win combats instead of massive units. I mean I overran with my witch horde into a unit of Yhettes, was counter charged by two units of lead belchers and still ended up winning the combat despite being flanked. Seemed a bit off to me. Also seeing a unit of 10 empire knights slam into one of my spearman blocks and just bounce off seemed wrong as well.

Maybe he wasn't using his knights right. For me anyway, empire nights should be in units of 13 with a character with crown of command and should all have great weapons. As for the witch elf horde, they will die very easlily against shooting and templates and will find it hard to deal with armoured things so its not all good!

So I don't know if it's for smart people or not. I mean it is a game after all. What I can say from my first experience is I am not impressed. I think it still has tactics and skill just they are much different now then they were in 7th which some will be happy with and others won't be happy with. I can say I'll keep playing 8th cause some in my gaming group like the "epic amounts of death." But I think my best friend and I shall be sticking to 7th or just splicing 7th and 8th together to get the game we want.

Its good that you are able to do that but I would be very careful if you also wish to go to tournements as you won't have played the same rules set everyone else has.

Justicar_Freezer
01-08-2010, 18:40
Heimagoblin thanks for the thought out reply. I'll give alittle more info on our game that we had.

Throughout the game in the movement phase I moved roughly 3 of my units. One was my Cold One Knights which i attempted to send up a flank. The other two were spearmen units which i moved slightly to protect flanks on other units.

In regards to the shooting I was up against. It wasn't that there wasn't alot it was just the empire player had an unlucky go of it. He had two units of 10 handgunners, a cannon, a mortar, and a helblaster volley gun. First turn both the Mortar and Cannon misfire, the cannon blows up. The volley gun was out of range all game until I killed it with bolt throwers. His handgunners killed a few of my knights and a few spearmen. The mortar was scary killing a rank and a half of my spearman in one shot. As for the ogre player well Once I broke through and hit his yhettes he countercharged with his leadbelchers for some reason.

In regards to the knight unit he was simply seeing if they could be effective as a hammer unit or if they needed to be a flanking unit in the new edition. Also as for the Witch Horde I have to agree that against any army with a decent amount of shooting they will just die. Also with being able to get a 4+ ward save on your mages the miscast table isn't bad at all.

In regards to tournies or even pickup games for that matter. The only time I play anyone outside of my gaming group is at games day and since the registered games are all reffed anyway it shouldn't be a problem.

Also just gotta say. This is the most I've been quoted ever in my time here on warseer..it's kinda cool.

Duke Georgal
01-08-2010, 18:55
I think it sucks.

Sorry to hear that.

I am quite a vet myself, and I am finding 8th edition a blast!

Maoriboy007
01-08-2010, 20:11
The big spells themselves are not the problem, its the fact that the miscast table isn't as bad as it should be.

Actually most people think that the magic system itself is a vast improvement on the old. The spells themselves are the real problem , in fact I would go as far as saying it was one of the core problems in 7th and one they managed to fail at addressing.

as far as the original post goes, I'd find it hard to agree that 8th is particularly for "smart people" in fact isn't the general consensus that the game went through a "dumbing down" (for good or ill)

If I have any real problems with 8th edition its that they didn't stop while they were ahead, they would make some much needed changes, and compound it into an error by addinng completely unessesary ones.

Kal Taron
01-08-2010, 21:28
Mhh, problems with the magic system of 8th IMO:
- pools don't scale. you get the same amount of dice whether you play 500pts or 50.000pts. So unless your army has some means to increase the pools in a way to get around the 12 dice limit it becomes difficult.
- Instant kill and Magic Resistance... IK allows no saves and all MR gives you is a ward save. So no protection against some spells at all.
- Hit all spells in the basic lores. These were never a good idea IMO but in the basic lores it's just too much.
- a lvl4 is almost mandatory for any army that can reasonalby take one. Which are pretty much all of them. (Except Dwarves, DoC and Khemri. Not sure about OK)

chamelion 6
01-08-2010, 21:36
as far as the original post goes, I'd find it hard to agree that 8th is particularly for "smart people" in fact isn't the general consensus that the game went through a "dumbing down" (for good or ill)


As I recall the title of this thread was a counter to another thread suggesting 8th was for stupid people. That one died and this one is still floating.

As for the general consensus that 8 is dumbed down? I'd say thats true amongs a certain demographic, but not the overall consensus. It's a vocal minority that's saying that. From following these threads since before the release it seems the consensus is swinging more strongly in favor of 8th.

Not that it matters... Either you like it or not.

Theodred
03-08-2010, 14:20
because no matter what one thinks it is infantry that wins wars.

Tell that to Genghis Khan.

RanaldLoec
03-08-2010, 14:47
Oe
Tell that to Genghis Khan.

Genghis Khan was eventually defeated by a mixture of Roman infantry and germanic goths (im not talking about an army of pasty white teenagers wearing make up).

I started playing warhammer at the age of 11 in 5th ed, 17 years and 3 editions later I think this is the best edition yet in my experaince.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
03-08-2010, 14:52
Genghis Khan was eventually defeated by a mixture of Roman infantry and germanic goths (im not talking about an army of pasty white teenagers wearing make up).

What, Genghis Khan was defeated by time travelers? :D

You sure you're not thinking about Attila?

Zaszz
03-08-2010, 14:56
In the previous edition it was fairly common amongst my play group for us to end up in some retarded mexican stand off, where the first guy to charge would get fled and lured into flanking position, and vise versa. In this edition that doesn't happen because we don't know if the charges will suceed or not, so we actually fight, and the skill changes from being focused on static knowledge, to your ability to play damage control and make better choices within the randomness. I would say of the 12 games I have played none of them have been decided by dice more or less then before. Just as in last edition and all previous editions random **** happens. This one just applied that to movement as well which to me thankfully prevents two good players from sitting just in charge range and staring at each other.

Zaszz
03-08-2010, 15:06
In regards to having high I making charging not matter much, I think the lance and spear weapons on cavalry along with the +1 CR generated by the charge make is VERY important.

RanaldLoec
03-08-2010, 15:08
Lol 800 years out still attilas army a step based nomadic tribes that relied on cavalry to win battles was eventually defeated by an army made up of mainly infantry.


But yes I was thinking around 400 AD not 1200 AD.

Zoolander
03-08-2010, 15:36
In regards to having high I making charging not matter much, I think the lance and spear weapons on cavalry along with the +1 CR generated by the charge make is VERY important.

Considering that most of the units you'll face will be infantry, not cavalry, I disagree completely.

As for your earlier battles being a Mexican standoff, that is precisely why skill mattered more then than now. Now instead of a skillfull game trying to outmaneuver your opponent, you'll more likely to see games of "let's see if I can make this charge <rolls dice>", since failing to make the charge rarely has adverse consequences (except for the odd doomwheel or cavalry unit,, etc.). On the plus side, since people are charging across the board willy nilly, there will be more time spent fighting combats and less time maneuvering around the board, which is more fun for most people.

PS. - leave history out of this dicussion. Not only is not on topic, but it doesn't even pertain to the game in any fashion. You may as well include a reference to Aragorn defeating an entire army with a handful of troops and some ghosts.

UberBeast
03-08-2010, 17:34
The more 8th edition I play, the more boring and repetitive the new rule system is becoming. Instead of having a desperate battle of manouver and countering eachother's efforts to gain the advantage, players simply slide units toward eachother and try to blast eachother to dust before they get into HtH.

Despite the randomness factor, the overall effect is that things have become more predictable. Where various armies used to use different builds and tactics, it seems that every army now has to play by the same build and tactic. What's more some army lists just seem better at this than others.

I'm sure variety will return once they get some of the books under way, but I am tempted to think that variety will come at a cost of balance as with previous editions.

Theodred
05-08-2010, 07:25
As for your earlier battles being a Mexican standoff, that is precisely why skill mattered more then than now.

I think the problem here is that we are confusing our definitions of skill.

In the 'mexican standoff' situation, the only skill involved is being able to judge the charge range of your troops and your opponents. You would still need a back-up plan if your charge failed, but with practice you could almost guarantee your charge range and your opponents reaction.

Now, however, you need to invest more time and thought into your back-up plans, because the variables in the equation are larger.

IMO, being able to better plan around the variables is a more interesting skill than being able to guage charge ranges.