PDA

View Full Version : Would these 4 changes make 8th better?



Gork or Possibly Mork
06-08-2010, 23:43
Just wondering how people would feel about these as house rules since alot of people seem to be complaining about 8th not being as tactical etc.

Magic
1. When rolling 5 or more dice to cast, rolling double ones means the spell cannot be cast with IF.

2. Players may still attempt to dispel a spell with IF but to dispel it they must dispel it with IF.

Combat
3. Units don't have the option to reform after sucessfully restraining pursuit.

4. Disrupted units can only claim steadfast if within 12" of the General or BSB.

SamVimes
06-08-2010, 23:56
Double 1's should be auto-fail on both casting and dispel. Otherwise, magic as is.

Steadfast just needs to be broken when ranks are broken.

Gork or Possibly Mork
07-08-2010, 00:09
Double 1's should be auto-fail on both casting and dispel. Otherwise, magic as is.

Steadfast just needs to be broken when ranks are broken.

I agree steadfast seems abit to good right now but just negating it by disruption is a bit too harsh I think. I think if disrupted allowing it if within 12" of the general would be enough to tone it down some.

The double 1's autofail suggestion sounds reasonable.

Edit: and I like how people vote but don't say anything. Looking to you Ibid, Screaming Manti, Yakovs. lol people love polls I guess.

freddieyu
07-08-2010, 00:12
I like the suggestions, except the 3rd one. The reform after restraining pursuit makes sense.

I voted other because of this.

Ultimate Life Form
07-08-2010, 00:18
No.

I like 8th very much as is. I see no reason to reintroduce sevenesque straitjacket restrictions now that the game finally feels like I have some control over what my troops do, a freedom I much enjoy.

09Project
07-08-2010, 00:18
I wouldn't want to see double 1 rules back, however, I wouldn't mind if dice rolls of a 1 to cast are ignored and not added to the total. So casting a 11+ spell with a lvl4, if he rolls a 5,1,1 his total would be a 9 thus a failed cast.

As for the combat ones, not had too many issues there so far so will hold on commenting

Gork or Possibly Mork
07-08-2010, 00:32
No.

I like 8th very much as is. I see no reason to reintroduce sevenesque straitjacket restrictions now that the game finally feels like I have some control over what my troops do, a freedom I much enjoy.

I like 8th too, alot actually and I'd hardly call these changes a straight jacket. I've only played a handful of games so far but I do see steadfast as being a tad too strong and uber spells a little rampant if you go for broke.

Not being able to reform would help bring back counter charging in a big way even though I admit it does make some sense as a rule. I think it's just a little too easy to pass a ld test to stop from getting flanked.

Lord Inquisitor
07-08-2010, 01:04
Double 1's should be auto-fail on both casting and dispel. Otherwise, magic as is.

Steadfast just needs to be broken when ranks are broken.

Agreed on all points. Make infantry chargers slightly less random (3d6 discard highest is a great suggestion) and say any troops crossing difficult terrain or obstacles disallowed from marching ... With these 4 changes I think 8th would be pretty decent IMO.

chamelion 6
07-08-2010, 01:05
I prefer 8th as it is. Most of this just tries to pull back some of the 7th edition ideology.

Bac5665
07-08-2010, 01:46
I'm fine with no autofail for spells, I just think that the lores are way to powerful.

But I'd get rid of step up to make I actually matter instead of the silly rule that GW made and get rid of random charges and premeasuring. I'd also cut the number of Ld checks to do random things in half. None of those things make 8E better in anyway IMO. They just make the dice too important while minimizing player skill.

SamVimes
07-08-2010, 01:46
I prefer 8th as it is. Most of this just tries to pull back some of the 7th edition ideology.

Well, as I quit Warhammer for the entirety of 7th edition, I think I can safely say you are wrong. Magic in 8th is hideously easy to exploit (Especially with the power scroll) for a really big bang. This tones it down. Steadfast being applicable at all times really makes 0 sense to me, regardless of edition. Remember, flanking (and breaking ranks) isn't as easy as it used to be, so there should be a decent reward for it. Being stuck in combat for the rest of the game with a huge unit you will be lucky to break isn't it. These are observations from someone who has no association with 7th, and so your criticism really doesn't float a matchstick.

Vaktathi
07-08-2010, 02:10
I think double 1's=fail to cast should have stayed in, as there's no point in not having your level 1 toss 6 dice to get off enhanced Purple Sun as soon as you can. If the rulebook lores weren't so powerful, I'd say it'd be fine otherwise, but they greatly enhanced the power of the rulebook lores.

Teongpeng
07-08-2010, 02:48
the suggestions are very whiny in nature. its like saying "oh my goblins cant fly, lets make it so that goblinscan fly, for sake of tactical goblins".

DaemonReign
07-08-2010, 02:53
I vote "Hell no" - not because any of these proposed changes matter all that much to me, but rather because they don't.

If the "double 1" thing had not been stricken from magic, then magic would have been fairly stricken instead with the new 12-dice cap. Now you get "miscasts" when you cause IF's - so there's still a Risk with casting lots of magic AND (unlike 7th) alot more fun stuff happens in the magic phase. I like it.

I don't see any reason why a resisted persuit would render a unit unable to reform. That bit is just lost on me.

Steadfast seems fair to alot of races that had their core-units run over by much smaller elites of other races - of course you could argue to and fro for all eternity whether it's "fluffy" or just some sort of new "plot-armor" for weak mortals but in the end I think it makes for a more challanging game. This is good. I just lost my first game ever against Dwarves (and yes it was a toned down army, but in seventh it didn't seem to matter how toned down one went) and I've never been so happy about a defeat.

8th Edition rules!

chamelion 6
07-08-2010, 04:43
Well, as I quit Warhammer for the entirety of 7th edition, I think I can safely say you are wrong. Magic in 8th is hideously easy to exploit (Especially with the power scroll) for a really big bang. This tones it down. Steadfast being applicable at all times really makes 0 sense to me, regardless of edition. Remember, flanking (and breaking ranks) isn't as easy as it used to be, so there should be a decent reward for it. Being stuck in combat for the rest of the game with a huge unit you will be lucky to break isn't it. These are observations from someone who has no association with 7th, and so your criticism really doesn't float a matchstick.

I played WFB 3rd through 6th. In my opinion 6th was such a dismal game that when 7th took it a step further I got rid of all my stuff.

So I sat it out also.

In an historic sense steadfast makes perfect sense to me exactly as is. As for magic, I miss the old days when it was unpredictable and way over the top. The new rules harken to those early editions. I like it wild, unpredictable and dangerous to everyone on the board. That's how I picture it.

These suggestions do nothing really except to try to bring back some of the predictability and control of the earlier edition. I didn't like the kind of tactical play the two previous editions made viable. It was too mechanical, dry and predictable. I want something more organic and realistic... I like where 8th went...

Feel free to disagree.

Signius
07-08-2010, 04:58
I think the magic changes are a bit overcomplicated and superfluous. The irresistible dispel option is really just a trap that would suck in bad players. I don't have a problem with the reform, you've successfully made the leadership check to remain in control and disciplined. This seems to represent an attempt to not end up over extended and expose flanks by chasing down the enemies, a reform fits well. I agree that it might be a good idea to mess around with steadfast but I don't think this is the way to go with it. Generals and BSB's are already kings of the leadership game, adding yet another benefit exacerbates the issue.

Eldanar
07-08-2010, 05:02
I played WFB 3rd through 6th. In my opinion 6th was such a dismal game that when 7th took it a step further I got rid of all my stuff.

So I sat it out also.

In an historic sense steadfast makes perfect sense to me exactly as is. As for magic, I miss the old days when it was unpredictable and way over the top. The new rules harken to those early editions. I like it wild, unpredictable and dangerous to everyone on the board. That's how I picture it.

These suggestions do nothing really except to try to bring back some of the predictability and control of the earlier edition. I didn't like the kind of tactical play the two previous editions made viable. It was too mechanical, dry and predictable. I want something more organic and realistic... I like where 8th went...

Feel free to disagree.

I couldn't agree with your commentary more.

And I have played from the very end of 2nd edition until now. Similarly, I became disillusioned in 6th, and stopped playing. I picked up the 7th ed. rules and thought, "This only makes the game worse, so what is the point?" I played maybe 1-2 games and decided all of the soul had been sucked out of the game with the ridiculous and overly-mechanical rules. It had become like playing a game of Magic but with miniatures and dice instead of cards.

8th ed. is a major move in the right direction to what WHFB should be. It is like GW melded 2nd ed. with the best parts of 3rd-5th (and completely wiped clean 6th and 7th).

I can honestly say I have not been as enthusiastic about playing a game of WHFB in over a decade as I am now.

Stumpy
07-08-2010, 05:03
How is a unit being steadfast even when flanked by 15 guys less predictable?

Simpler terrain that actually slows you down, steadfast gone when flanked by a unit with a rank, magic toned down a tad and I'd really like this edition.

artisturn
07-08-2010, 05:54
only played three games so far but I like what I have seen so far.

KalEf
07-08-2010, 05:58
I like 8th. but what would have made 8th for me (aside from no TLoS)

1. I wish you subtracted the largest # of ranks in your flank from the # of ranks you can claim. It would offer more in-game factors. Also, I would like large target monsters to count as having 1 rank.

As it stands now: if at the end of combat you are 20 goblins (5x4) vs a hoard of 30 chaos chosen with another hoard of 30 in your flank... you can take a stubborn ld 9 test if your general is wandering around within 12.

Steadfast does a good job of keeping 6 knights from breaking a 100 man unit, when they kill 10% of them :D ... but it also keeps the 100 man unit around if 50% of them die and they are flanked and out numbered :wtf: ... just as bad to me.

I really like steadfast... I just wish it was a little more dynamic.

2. I wish the "to wound" chart was more like the ranged "to hit" chart. strength 1 should have a tougher time wounding toughness 7 than strength 5 does. So 2+,3+,4+,5+,6+,6+/2+,6+/3+,6+/4+ etc

3. Little less secrecy and a little more playtesting/ editing. a few more eyes on the rules before hand might have lead to a shorter errata section ;)



i like the new magic system! (even tough I got Effed up by a slan 2 days ago) Though the IF dispel still working over IF spell sounds like an ok Idea.



Any how, that's me.

chamelion 6
07-08-2010, 06:32
How is a unit being steadfast even when flanked by 15 guys less predictable?

Simpler terrain that actually slows you down, steadfast gone when flanked by a unit with a rank, magic toned down a tad and I'd really like this edition.

Terrain is easily house ruled. As for steadfast, why would 15 guys scare 50 trained hardened soldiers in formation into screaming like girls and running away, as they say? Hit them in the rear and the front, make them bleed... then maybe. Emphasis on the make them bleed. That kind of formation you gotta break their spirit and will. You gotta overwhelm them. 15 versus 50? uhhhhh... no.

As for perdictable, your just holding up one part of the game. So if I take you at your word here, the 8th edition is no more unpredictable than 7th?

Stumpy
07-08-2010, 08:23
Who uses units of 50?
Anyway we aren't talking about hardened soldiers, the units that get that big are usually the cheap ones: gobbos, slaves, gnoblars. I've repeatedly had situations of units of 15-19 guys in the flank of 30 guys, beat the hell out of them and have them hold on steadfast (both mine and enemy). I quite like steadfast but the little instance of it staying when flanked is lame. Your ranks are your guys forming a tight formation and pushing forward to force the enemy back. When you're hit in the side with considerable force (ie a unit with a rank) your men should topple but be able to hold with sufficient combat ability or motivation. If they're soundly beaten in combat ability to boot the formation should shatter. Its just physics, when force is directed one way and gets hit with reasonable force from its side it will redirect and give way. Think about a moving car being hit in the side by a motorcycle. The motorcycle has less mass but it has sufficient compared to the car to send it carreening off.

Nocculum
07-08-2010, 08:34
The answer to your question is in fact 'play 7th Edition.'

NecroMaster
07-08-2010, 09:43
This is just a thread guys. A what if. some of you people need to calm down. Chill, in other words. This is nothing official and people have the right to think whatever they want to think. But, some opinions are wrong. That's just the fact of life, and in the end, this is why we call them opinions. 8th edition is fine the way it is...in my opinion. ;)

bring it:shifty:

Gazak Blacktoof
07-08-2010, 10:22
It is only templates and the nastiest of spells that my group seem to have taken a dislike to- can't say I blame them (though I was prepared to take a run at the edition without any house rules).

We haven't played enough games with drawn out combats to comment on the steadfast rules yet.

Idle Scholar
07-08-2010, 10:27
Hmm, 4 changes?

Magic: Double 1 = fail (cast or dispel)
Steadfast 1: Count all the ranks involved in the combat
Steadfast 2: Disrupting ranks removes steadfast
Charge Movement: Either 2 x M + D3 or this table:

Roll a dice and compare to a table:

M + <5" Auto
M + 5" 2+
M + 6" 3+
M + 7" 4+
M + 8" 5+
M + 9" 6+
M + >9" Fail

Swiftstride adds 1" to charge distances.

Haravikk
07-08-2010, 10:31
I think some of the more powerful spells (especially ones that are super effective against specific armies) should be reigned in, but beyond that I really like 8th as it is.
Double 1 making irresistible force impossible is interesting, but it already comes with a Miscast; I say make Miscasts deadlier the more dice you rolled, to discourage people rolling extra dice purely to get irresistible force.

Steadfast makes sense as a big unit isn't going to care much at all about a flank charge, but that flank charge is still useful, especially if it's causing disruption as that's essentially +4 in your favour for combat resolution (+5 with a rear charge instead), meaning the enemy will be taking break tests a lot more frequently than you, at which point even a Steadfast unit will fail. If you don't like them being steadfast then take the opportunity to grind them down, if it's an especially huge unit then it's either a horde and fairly easy to get kills, or its a large investment of points in which case charging in several units of similar total value won't hurt.

Goblin Gonads
07-08-2010, 10:38
I wouldn't tone down magic, and I think the poster who said the changes smack of 7th edition ideology is spot on.

If 8th is the edition of wanton death and destruction, I would make the miscast table reflect this by having more results that slay the caster outright. That would make people think twice about rolling 6 dice to cast. Maybe have the miscast results dependant on the amount of dice used to cast, the more used the more lethal the resulting feedback

rodmillard
07-08-2010, 14:05
I quite like the changes to magic:

Double ones means no IF... so you can try and dispel but I don't have to roll on the miscast table. That's still a base of 15, assuming five dice rolling 11166, so most things should go off.

Chance to dispel IF with 2 6s in the dispel roll... slim. Very slim chance - but it might be worth a gamble, depending on how devastating the spell is. Lets face it, if you're playing anything other than dwarves or empire you would be throwing your entire dispel pool at the chance of a double 6.

Both are good house rules, if you find your group doesn't like magic heavy games. If you all agree then go ahead and house rule it - but if you are asking if I think these rules should be added to the core game, then no.

I don't agree with the changes to combat though. Maybe its because I'm a military history geek (hell, I'm half way through a PhD in crusader archaeology...) but reform after restraining pursuit just sounds right. After all, in the real world the best way to stop a unit pursuing would be to sound the order for them to reform.

With point 4, I just don't think the general/bsb should make a difference. Disruption should negate steadfast, end of story (I also think it should negate rank based rules like the skaven Strength In Numbers rule, but thats a subject for another thread).

chamelion 6
07-08-2010, 15:15
Who uses units of 50?
Anyway we aren't talking about hardened soldiers, the units that get that big are usually the cheap ones: gobbos, slaves, gnoblars. I've repeatedly had situations of units of 15-19 guys in the flank of 30 guys, beat the hell out of them and have them hold on steadfast (both mine and enemy). I quite like steadfast but the little instance of it staying when flanked is lame. Your ranks are your guys forming a tight formation and pushing forward to force the enemy back. When you're hit in the side with considerable force (ie a unit with a rank) your men should topple but be able to hold with sufficient combat ability or motivation. If they're soundly beaten in combat ability to boot the formation should shatter. Its just physics, when force is directed one way and gets hit with reasonable force from its side it will redirect and give way. Think about a moving car being hit in the side by a motorcycle. The motorcycle has less mass but it has sufficient compared to the car to send it carreening off.

Ok... 25 guys getting hit in the flank by 15... Why would they run away? what's so scary about these 15 guys? What's so overwhelming about them?

Remember it's not numbers, it's ranks, depth... Trained units simply did not break apart because they they got attacked. I've been going over my books and I simply can't find anything to validate that idea.

As for physics... If a motorcycle hits a car in the side then the car hits the motorcycle with an equal force. The impact is equal for both. If you hit a wall with your fist the wall hits your fist back with an equal force, that's why it hurts... That's Newton's 3rd law. If you're going to think of these blocks like solid objects then they're hitting at right angles... there are no obliques in this game... so the force of the impact hits both equally and your lighter unit is going to get hit just as hard as my bigger one.

Personally I think this has more to do with training and psycology than physics, but the point works either way. It takes more than a handfull of guys to chase off a formed unit bigger than them.

Tower_Of_The_Stars
07-08-2010, 15:21
I don't think you will get many yes' since one would have to agree on all four. I think the results would be different if you did a poll solely on steadfast ;) (and maybe magic)

chamelion 6
07-08-2010, 15:26
Steadfast makes sense as a big unit isn't going to care much at all about a flank charge, but that flank charge is still useful, especially if it's causing disruption as that's essentially +4 in your favour for combat resolution (+5 with a rear charge instead), meaning the enemy will be taking break tests a lot more frequently than you, at which point even a Steadfast unit will fail. If you don't like them being steadfast then take the opportunity to grind them down, if it's an especially huge unit then it's either a horde and fairly easy to get kills, or its a large investment of points in which case charging in several units of similar total value won't hurt.

Exactly... Getting charged in the flank makes it harder to fight until the unit orients itself. There is a temporary, but minor, confusion as they turn to face the chargers. Hence a +1cr...

Someone mentioned counting all the ranks in a combat, I assume meaning, count all of the ranks in every unit as though it were one deep unit of x + y ranks. My question is, what is this supposed to represent in the game? As it is it represents the value of having a deeper unit than the other guy... How do the ranks in x unit add impetus to the ranks in Y unit? If you're going to lawyer out the rule like that, why not just change it so charging in the flanks negates steadfast and be done with it?

SamVimes
07-08-2010, 16:28
Ok...this is to everyone talking about unit not caring if it gets hit in the flank and staying steadfast.

1: Getting a flank disrupts the formation. The enemy unit most likely penetrates into the flanked unit. That would be traumatizing in a fight. Yes, the unit would likely recover after the initial hit, and that is represented wonderfully by the ability to reform in combat.

2. It's not always a small unit flanking a much larger one to deny steadfast. Here's 2 reasonable scenarios.

A) Unit A (50 Goblins arranged 5 wide, 10 deep to keep steadfast) Gets flanked by Unit B (50 Men-at-arms with Halberds arranged as a horde, so 10 wide 5 deep). We can expect the M@A to kill about 8 gobbos...nowhere near enough to negate steadfast, and yet the goblins get to maintain it because...They artificially have more ranks because it's mechanically superior in the game?

B) Same unit of goblins (this time in horde) Gets flanked by 12 Empire Knights. 9ish dead goblins. And yet a fairly large unit of knights has no hope of breaking steadfast, even though it's a pretty devastating charge. Guess gobbos could care less they just got hit from an unexpected quarter and had a bunch of mates slaughtered.

Steadfast is a good rule with one terrible problem.

8th is a fantastic rule-set (way better than 7th) that still has a couple of annoying wrinkles.

Remember, this is not an 8th edition sucks thread. It's what little changes could be made to make 8th better, so all of you telling us that we should go back to playing 7th missed the mark by a mile.

Gork or Possibly Mork
07-08-2010, 16:48
Remember, this is not an 8th edition sucks thread. It's what little changes could be made to make 8th better, so all of you telling us that we should go back to playing 7th missed the mark by a mile.

Thankyou for pointing that out. It was the reason I started the thread. Not to whine but some issues were brought up in another thread that while I may not agree with fully there were some good points that perhaps some subtle changes wouldn't hurt.

I haven't really played enough to say 8th is bad or good but I do like what I see so far I really do but there are some things that could perhaps be toned down just a minute amount.

I haven't come across it yet but one example would be purple Sun+powerscroll. I haven't done the math yet but it seems about 1 out of every 2-4 games that thing will go off and will likely wreck about 400-500 pts. worth of army with ease and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Sure they will miscast and it might eat thier caster, and some of his unit but the reward is much much greater than the risk. Now it's only really amazing against low intiative armies but there are other uber spells like it that target other weaknesses.

That concerns me a little, though I admit not a whole lot but I've never been a fan of I win buttons especially since you can't stop it and it's very likely to happen.

Like I said I like 8th and whatever I don't like about it I'll figure out how to deal with it. 8th seems to be all about possibilities and I really do like that.

chamelion 6
07-08-2010, 16:57
Ok...this is to everyone talking about unit not caring if it gets hit in the flank and staying steadfast.

1: Getting a flank disrupts the formation. The enemy unit most likely penetrates into the flanked unit. That would be traumatizing in a fight. Yes, the unit would likely recover after the initial hit, and that is represented wonderfully by the ability to reform in combat.

Why would the enemy penetrate the cohesion of the unit? See, this all hinges on the idea that the guys on the flank are somehow helpless. Their job was to watch for threats to their side. They were the vets and the best trained of the guys in the unit, the front few ranks were the rookies. Whe a threat appeared on the flank the call would go up and the unit would adjust, depending on the level of the threat. The disruption represents the momentary confusion as the focus of the unit shifts. It doesn't mean they completely fall apart and can't fight. The line along a flank of formed (read deep) infantry was solid.

Again, I've yet to really find anything to support the idea that solid units crumbled just because they got charged in the flank.



2. It's not always a small unit flanking a much larger one to deny steadfast. Here's 2 reasonable scenarios.

A) Unit A (50 Goblins arranged 5 wide, 10 deep to keep steadfast) Gets flanked by Unit B (50 Men-at-arms with Halberds arranged as a horde, so 10 wide 5 deep). We can expect the M@A to kill about 8 gobbos...nowhere near enough to negate steadfast, and yet the goblins get to maintain it because...They artificially have more ranks because it's mechanically superior in the game? They don't "artificially" have more ranks... They formed into ranks on purpose. And that formation was considered superior in real life too... Trained units in the Pike & Shot era formed deep units for moral and psycological reasons.



B) Same unit of goblins (this time in horde) Gets flanked by 12 Empire Knights. 9ish dead goblins. And yet a fairly large unit of knights has no hope of breaking steadfast, even though it's a pretty devastating charge. Guess gobbos could care less they just got hit from an unexpected quarter and had a bunch of mates slaughtered.
Why assume the charge was unexpected just because it's the flank? You're cav didn't just materialize there. They would have been watched all the way around and seen the charge. So no, the cav alone isn't going to be enough, just like in real life. Experienced combatants, understood that the formation was the key to their survival. They'd seen the results of breaking formation. That's why the vets were placed at the rear and flanks. So do they care, yes, but they also understand the best chance they have is to stand and fight. That's what steadfast represents, the stubborn determination of a formed unit to hold it that formation. The hoard rule is about simplly being bigger, so the unit musters more attacks, but it generally lacks depth so it breaks easier.




Steadfast is a good rule with one terrible problem.

8th is a fantastic rule-set (way better than 7th) that still has a couple of annoying wrinkles.

Remember, this is not an 8th edition sucks thread. It's what little changes could be made to make 8th better, so all of you telling us that we should go back to playing 7th missed the mark by a mile.

I like 8th too... But I really like the dynamic the hoard and steadfast rule brought to the game too. To me they make sense. I don't see a problem with either.

Gork or Possibly Mork
07-08-2010, 17:07
Why would the enemy penetrate the cohesion of the unit? See, this all hinges on the idea that the guys on the flank are somehow helpless. Their job was to watch for threats to their side. They were the vets and the best trained of the guys in the unit, the front few ranks were the rookies. Whe a threat appeared on the flank the call would go up and the unit would adjust, depending on the level of the threat. The disruption represents the momentary confusion as the focus of the unit shifts. It doesn't mean they completely fall apart and can't fight. The line along a flank of formed (read deep) infantry was solid.

Again, I've yet to really find anything to support the idea that solid units crumbled just because they got charged in the flank.

They don't "artificially" have more ranks... They formed into ranks on purpose. And that formation was considered superior in real life too... Trained units in the Pike & Shot era formed deep units for moral and psycological reasons.


Why assume the charge was unexpected just because it's the flank? You're cav didn't just materialize there. They would have been watched all the way around and seen the charge. So no, the cav alone isn't going to be enough, just like in real life. Experienced combatants, understood that the formation was the key to their survival. They'd seen the results of breaking formation. That's why the vets were placed at the rear and flanks. So do they care, yes, but they also understand the best chance they have is to stand and fight. That's what steadfast represents, the stubborn determination of a formed unit to hold it that formation. The hoard rule is about simplly being bigger, so the unit musters more attacks, but it generally lacks depth so it breaks easier.




I like 8th too... But I really like the dynamic the hoard and steadfast rule brought to the game too. To me they make sense. I don't see a problem with either.

How would you feel if steadfast could be negated if engaged in the front and disrupted in the flank? When steadfast was just a rumour I actually thought that's how it would work.

chamelion 6
07-08-2010, 17:33
How would you feel if steadfast could be negated if engaged in the front and disrupted in the flank? When steadfast was just a rumour I actually thought that's how it would work.

I personally like it the way it is, at least at the moment.

However, that is a sound tactic even if it doesn't negate steadfast. By hitting the unit in front and the side, the unit cannot adequately face both sides so you have 2 units with supporting attacks he only has one. Add to that loosing all rank bonuses for being disrupted and the only advantage the unit charged is steadfast... that is rolling on an unmodified Ld.. For most troops, what 5 to 7?

That is what steadfast is supposed to show, that a unit tries desperately to hold it's formation because to do otherwise is death. So you don't kill it in one turn, it takes 2, maybe 3 if it's big enough. But that's accurate. It's doomed, just a matter of breaking their will... Forcing them to roll till they fail or causing enough death that the unit finally falters because there are not enough breathing bodies to sustain it.

Haravikk
07-08-2010, 17:34
I like how it is; you get plenty of bonus from flanking as it is, if you can do it with a big unit and grind down a few ranks of the steadfast enemy then it's over for them. But it's more unrealistic to think of a huge 100 strong unit crumbling just because two smaller units hit its front and side, that unit isn't going anywhere! In fact a good infantry block is trained specifically to stay where it is, as the moment they start breaking formation its all over, and it takes more than a few small units to do that.

Remember that if a unit of 6 ranks is flank attacked by one of two ranks, and front attacked by one of four ranks, then they're no longer Steadfast (assailed unit has more ranks than the enemy forces). I think the rule works just fine in practise, as it's a whole lot easier to manoeuvre units in 8th edition.

chamelion 6
07-08-2010, 17:42
I like how it is; you get plenty of bonus from flanking as it is, if you can do it with a big unit and grind down a few ranks of the steadfast enemy then it's over for them. But it's more unrealistic to think of a huge 100 strong unit crumbling just because two smaller units hit its front and side, that unit isn't going anywhere! In fact a good infantry block is trained specifically to stay where it is, as the moment they start breaking formation its all over, and it takes more than a few small units to do that.

Remember that if a unit of 6 ranks is flank attacked by one of two ranks, and front attacked by one of four ranks, then they're no longer Steadfast (assailed unit has more ranks than the enemy forces). I think the rule works just fine in practise, as it's a whole lot easier to manoeuvre units in 8th edition.

That's not how steadfast works. You compare the unit with the enemy unit with the most ranks. If you have more than them your are steadfast. Son in your example the unit of six outnumbers the unit of 4. it is stead fast. The whole idea is it rewards units for depth.

That's on page 60. "...compare the unit's ranks to the enemy unit with the most ranks in the combat." No where does it say to add them together. My unit to your deepest unit.

Haravikk
07-08-2010, 17:55
Sorry I seem to have omitted a chunk; it should have mentioned that all you need is to kill one rank and one model and that unit isn't steadfast anymore (well, a few more accounting for your own losses), it's not hard if you're using your units right, if the enemy is using theirs well too then combats should drag on for ages.

BorderKing
07-08-2010, 18:15
I like your ideas and would like to add the change of changing skirmishers to how they used to work. I personally don't like how they can't see 360 degrees now. They just seem wrong now.

Lord Inquisitor
07-08-2010, 18:56
They don't "artificially" have more ranks... They formed into ranks on purpose. And that formation was considered superior in real life too... Trained units in the Pike & Shot era formed deep units for moral and psycological reasons.
But in this example, we have two units in identical formation (10x5) matching up with the long edges in contact (both sides with 10 models in contact). What you're saying is that it makes perfect sense that a unit who is hit in the flank should be stubborn whereas if that exact same formation were facing the enemy, they shouldn't be. What?

Another example is where a unit of 30 is hit in the flank and rear by two units of 25, but is steadfast as it "outnumbers" them.

Steadfast could certainly have been implemented better.

Aluinn
07-08-2010, 18:58
I think what I'd do to Magic is: Double 1s always fail, double 6s cause IF, and if both double 1s and double 6s are rolled (on 4 or more dice of course) they cancel each other out and it's resolved as a normal casting roll. This would make suicidal Level 1 casters throwing 6 dice at Purple Sun or something much less likely to succeed, and that kind of weirdness is my only real problem with the system. (I mean, how many wizards would really be willing to try blowing themselves up? If missile troops can't shoot into combats, I can't see that making any sense. Most of them are not ideological fanatics.)

For the rest of the rules, I think Steadfast is fine. Flanking is perfectly good in 8th in my experience. I don't think any more incentive to do it, beyond winning combats consistently, is needed. It is *much worse* than in 7th, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. You have to evaluate these things on their own merits rather than making constant comparisons to older versions of the rules.

As for Steadfast being broken on its own, it's applied relatively, so I'm not even sure if that's possible. It is there to make sure combats are longer and bloodier, which it does. It is, I will grant, easier to make use of for more horde-ish armies, but those are likely to use the Horde rule and sacrifice a number of ranks to do so, and also lose models quickly enough that they won't have Steadfast for too long in anything but an even (or advantageous) matchup, points-wise.

Oh, and it seems reasonable to me that foregoing pursuit should probably allow a unit to do something else, so I have no problem with the reform.

theorox
07-08-2010, 19:20
I'd say no. These changes would just add more complicated rules, i think. :)

Theo

chamelion 6
07-08-2010, 19:44
But in this example, we have two units in identical formation (10x5) matching up with the long edges in contact (both sides with 10 models in contact). What you're saying is that it makes perfect sense that a unit who is hit in the flank should be stubborn whereas if that exact same formation were facing the enemy, they shouldn't be. What?

Another example is where a unit of 30 is hit in the flank and rear by two units of 25, but is steadfast as it "outnumbers" them.

Steadfast could certainly have been implemented better.

10 x 5 does not equate to 5 x 10 any more than 5/10 equals 10/5.

Steadfast is not about numbers, it is about depth. A 10 x 5 unit is shallower than a 5 x 10, they are notthe same formation. Historically, trained units formed in depth for a reason, it made their units sturdier. Depth in rank was considered an advantage until firearms became more common and wider formations could generate more fire. The hoard rule is the flip side to the coin. It was able to envelop a narrow, deeper formation and generate more attacks (in game terms) but were much more prone to breaking and running.

So, deep units are steadfast, wide units are hoards. Steadfast is about depth in formation and the psycological advantage that goes with it. Hoard is about numbers and making the most of them.

Steadfast counts ranks, hoard counts models. Two completely different things. Take it beyond static models and words and imagine what action is happening "in the real life" of the table top.

If you want to negate steadfast, reform to a 5 x10 and charge... Then you are of equal depth and steadfast is negated. The impetus of the units are the same and cancel out.

Damocles8
07-08-2010, 19:56
I'd say lances add +2 I on the charge and mounted spears +1

Lord Inquisitor
07-08-2010, 20:23
Steadfast is not about numbers, it is about depth. A 10 x 5 unit is shallower than a 5 x 10, they are notthe same formation. Historically, trained units formed in depth for a reason, it made their units sturdier. Depth in rank was considered an advantage until firearms became more common and wider formations could generate more fire. The hoard rule is the flip side to the coin. It was able to envelop a narrow, deeper formation and generate more attacks (in game terms) but were much more prone to breaking and running.
Fine, I'm not sure that I agree with this historically but it sounds a reasonable game mechanic.

But this makes not one whit of sense if a unit is flanked. You don't have the benefit of those ranks if flanked as they're not backing the fighting rank anymore. While nominally 5x10, if fighting to the flank your files become your ranks and each fighting model only has 4 guys behind him. There's no logic whatsoever to the idea that somehow a fighting formation that is to all uremia and purposes 10x5 but facing the wrong way - that's absurd! It's entirely a game artefact. They're both fighting effectively 5 ranks deep and the flank charger has every advantage, yet by a quirk of the game mechanics the outmaneuvered unit is granted stubborn. Even more bizarre, if the flanked unit passes their Ld test they can reform, but ad they can't move models out of combat, the net effect of a reform would be to turn to face their opponents - in which case, having held against the initial flank charge (due to stubborn) now reformed and able to fight the enemy properly, they lose stubborn!

Archibald_Godboldt
07-08-2010, 20:27
What I don't get is why everyone is whining about the power scroll. You give it to your lvl 1 and all you have is a really expensive piece of one use artillery (and that's only IF you roll uber-spell). Sure you're gonna do some damage but if my army is built like I'm playing 8th then I take the hit and keep on coming.
On a lark I tried a unit of 100 Empire Halberdiers. It got hit with 2 spells that caused 40 casualties and it didn't matter. It was still more than effective enough to roll right over 2 units of WoC.
All of these problems can be solved by reading the rulebook, understanding it, and building your lists accordingly. That may mean that you use a unit that you don't normally use but, hey, a lot of those units got way better in this new rulebook.

Invest in bigger movement trays.

Gork or Possibly Mork
07-08-2010, 20:39
Fine, I'm not sure that I agree with this historically but it sounds a reasonable game mechanic.

But this makes not one whit of sense if a unit is flanked. You don't have the benefit of those ranks if flanked as they're not backing the fighting rank anymore. While nominally 5x10, if fighting to the flank your files become your ranks and each fighting model only has 4 guys behind him. There's no logic whatsoever to the idea that somehow a fighting formation that is to all uremia and purposes 10x5 but facing the wrong way - that's absurd! It's entirely a game artefact. They're both fighting effectively 5 ranks deep and the flank charger has every advantage, yet by a quirk of the game mechanics the outmaneuvered unit is granted stubborn. Even more bizarre, if the flanked unit passes their Ld test they can reform, but ad they can't move models out of combat, the net effect of a reform would be to turn to face their opponents - in which case, having held against the initial flank charge (due to stubborn) now reformed and able to fight the enemy properly, they lose stubborn!

This is an excellent point but if a horde slams into the flank of a deep steadfast unit the steadfast unit won't be steadfast long.

Archibald_Godboldt

True it's not a big deal for halberdiers but if purple sun rolls over a saurus block and some temple guard expect 500 pts. gone in one fell swoop for the price of a wizard and perhaps a couple of his mates. Even then it's not over. It can still go on rampaging the rest of the army. It'd be worth risking a lvl 4 to be able to do that.

Archibald_Godboldt
07-08-2010, 20:51
True it's not a big deal for halberdiers but if purple sun rolls over a saurus block and some temple guard expect 500 pts. gone in one fell swoop for the price of a wizard and perhaps a couple of his mates. Even then it's not over. It can still go on rampaging the rest of the army. It'd be worth risking a lvl 4 to be able to do that.

A good point. I would urge Lizardmen players, if that becomes common, to entertain the idea of giving their Slaan the lore of Light (speed of light combats the purple sun immeasurably) as well as taking ranked units of skinks. Having lots of cheap troops is going to be the trend in 8th and, like it or not, with steadfast being the way it is the hyper-elite armies are going to go by the wayside.

Gork or Possibly Mork
07-08-2010, 21:06
A good point. I would urge Lizardmen players, if that becomes common, to entertain the idea of giving their Slaan the lore of Light (speed of light combats the purple sun immeasurably) as well as taking ranked units of skinks. Having lots of cheap troops is going to be the trend in 8th and, like it or not, with steadfast being the way it is the hyper-elite armies are going to go by the wayside.

Yeah I've been thinking about taking light for just that reason but life is just too tempting but an opponent could simply do everything in thier power to dispel that spell.

I haven't actually run into to the suicidal sun wizard yet but the prospect does frighten me some. I do have alot of skinks ( skirmishers atleast ) though and I've considered having one big cohort tarpit but I won't be giving up my saurus blocks which are the back bone of the army. Becalming cogitation is nice since it removes 6's and means it will never go off with IF but at the same time they can still chuck alot of dice at it hoping to get a high score you won't dispel knowing they won't miscast. I'll probably just use becalming and stick with life and add a dispel scroll.

Archibald_Godboldt
07-08-2010, 21:26
Yeah I've been thinking about taking light for just that reason but life is just too tempting but an opponent could simply do everything in thier power to dispel that spell.

I haven't actually run into to the suicidal sun wizard yet but the prospect does frighten me some. I do have alot of skinks ( skirmishers atleast ) though and I've considered having one big cohort tarpit but I won't be giving up my saurus blocks which are the back bone of the army. Becalming cogitation is nice since it removes 6's and means it will never go off with IF but at the same time they can still chuck alot of dice at it hoping to get a high score you won't dispel knowing they won't miscast. I'll probably just use becalming and stick with life and add a dispel scroll.

I dunno, Pha's protection is still really good as is Net of Amyntok...
But everyone talks about it and no one's done it so...

Justice And Rule
07-08-2010, 21:40
The problem with having flanking instantly nullify steadfast is that you get much smaller units an easy chance to run over a huge unit still. Put 10 guys on the side to nullify ranks of some gobbos and they win combat (Which they certainly will)? Suddenly ten guys are making the gobbos take a nearly unwinnable test. You need to balance it so that it's disadvantageous to steadfast units, but doesn't nullify it completely, otherwise horde units are far, far too brittle. Adding up total ranks doesn't work either, because two units of 5x5 would be 10 ranks technically, which doesn't make sense unless you are totaling them up by side or something, and then you get problems with multiple units on a side without even ranks and all sorts of fiddly bits. Let's avoid those calculations and keep it simple.

This isn't something I would personally use, but a more balanced suggestion: Any unit which is flanked counts as one rank less than they would normally be, as well as being disrupted. This is not cumulative (You get enough bonuses as is, including CR). If this is true, that should make an anvil/hammer attack with a deep infantry unit and a hard-hitting flanker more viable to destroy a horde unit.

Again, I wouldn't personally do it. Being able to flank gives you a lot power in dealing out damage while minimizing damage back. But it's certainly a much better idea than breaking steadfast completely, because it misses the point of the rule (We have more guys, we shouldn't be afraid of this little unit). But I think this is much ado about nothing; your average horde unit is going to be around Ld7, so it's going to have about a half/half chance of failing anyways. It's not as though Stubborn confers Ld10 or something which makes them completely unbreakable.

Korraz
07-08-2010, 21:52
Irresistable Ban. That's it, magic fixed. Nothing more.

chamelion 6
07-08-2010, 22:11
Fine, I'm not sure that I agree with this historically but it sounds a reasonable game mechanic.

But this makes not one whit of sense if a unit is flanked. You don't have the benefit of those ranks if flanked as they're not backing the fighting rank anymore. While nominally 5x10, if fighting to the flank your files become your ranks and each fighting model only has 4 guys behind him. There's no logic whatsoever to the idea that somehow a fighting formation that is to all uremia and purposes 10x5 but facing the wrong way - that's absurd! It's entirely a game artefact. They're both fighting effectively 5 ranks deep and the flank charger has every advantage, yet by a quirk of the game mechanics the outmaneuvered unit is granted stubborn. Even more bizarre, if the flanked unit passes their Ld test they can reform, but ad they can't move models out of combat, the net effect of a reform would be to turn to face their opponents - in which case, having held against the initial flank charge (due to stubborn) now reformed and able to fight the enemy properly, they lose stubborn!

Instead of calling it steadfast, lets call it by it's proper historic term... cohesion. A unit in a deeper formation than it's enemies has cohesion. That is its determination to hold that formation no matter what form of hell is thrown at it. Cohesion is a mental thing, a state of mind, the belief that they cannot be defeated as long as they hold ranks. The effect of the deep unit was psycological, they were traind to drill that way and their experience was that as long as they could hole their formation they would be safe. You don't get that from counting 10 models vs 10 models. You have to look at their grim hardened faces so see it... It isn't a quirk it's by design and there is history to back it.

As it stands you get 1 attack to his 2... You can try to fight it out or turn to face him... As you point out you will loose steadfast, or in historic terms, cohesion, if you do that, but it will be an even fight. You've just been forced to give up your biggest advantage...

Hint... now what happens when that cav unit sitting there charges in to what used to be the front? and even if he doesn't turn... he's left at a disadvantage, the threat of the cav forcing the issue...

Guys... this is how you defeat these things... Add in a turn or so of missile fire to shake 'em up. That's how it was done historically. But you don't think in terms of one unit, you think in terms of the line... If you have to defeat every unit on the board to win you're not going to be very successful. You focus on points of the line or the flank and try to hamstring the other players formation..

You overwhelm them and they crumble...

KalEf
08-08-2010, 00:51
I'd say lances add +2 I on the charge and mounted spears +1

+1 I wanted this too, just forgot to write it down


Fine, I'm not sure that I agree with this historically but it sounds a reasonable game mechanic.

But this makes not one whit of sense if a unit is flanked. You don't have the benefit of those ranks if flanked as they're not backing the fighting rank anymore. While nominally 5x10, if fighting to the flank your files become your ranks and each fighting model only has 4 guys behind him. There's no logic whatsoever to the idea that somehow a fighting formation that is to all uremia and purposes 10x5 but facing the wrong way - that's absurd! It's entirely a game artefact. They're both fighting effectively 5 ranks deep and the flank charger has every advantage, yet by a quirk of the game mechanics the outmaneuvered unit is granted stubborn. Even more bizarre, if the flanked unit passes their Ld test they can reform, but ad they can't move models out of combat, the net effect of a reform would be to turn to face their opponents - in which case, having held against the initial flank charge (due to stubborn) now reformed and able to fight the enemy properly, they lose stubborn!

They can't "hear" you. sorry :(
In a scenario where someone is out wounded, flanked, and out numbered I too think it is ridiculous that they get the steadfast bonus. I think that should be reserved for actual stubborn troops. Your argument about the ranks and files... spot on.

The justification for getting the bonus when flanked IN THE BOOK is they still "outnumber the foe". Your complaint of --they actually don't-- is falling on deaf ears. :(

Thus far, I've read a lot of good options to make steadfast more dynamic and sensible. But if someone likes the rule as is he/she will tell you that the goblins/ slaves/ peasants/ militia are all hardened soldiers and deserve to be stubborn. That's all there is too it.

Plus If you don't have to follow the justification in the book, you can make up all sorts of reasons. I'm expecting to read "well of course the goblins aren't going to run. You killed half of them so fast, the other half doesn't even know happened" "why would my militia run? with the new id cards they use in the empire, they would surely go to jail for deserting." "Alexander the Great never broke anyone by hitting them in the flank." etc...

chamelion 6
08-08-2010, 01:01
+1 I wanted this too, just forgot to write it down



They can't "hear" you. sorry :(
In a scenario where someone is out wounded, flanked, and out numbered I too think it is ridiculous that they get the steadfast bonus. I think that should be reserved for actual stubborn troops. Your argument about the ranks and files... spot on.

The justification for getting the bonus when flanked IN THE BOOK is they still "outnumber the foe". Your complaint of --they actually don't-- is falling on deaf ears. :(

Thus far, I've read a lot of good options to make steadfast more dynamic and sensible. But if someone likes the rule as is he/she will tell you that the goblins/ slaves/ peasants/ militia are all hardened soldiers and deserve to be stubborn. That's all there is too it.

Plus If you don't have to follow the justification in the book, you can make up all sorts of reasons. I'm expecting to read "well of course the goblins aren't going to run. You killed half of them so fast, the other half doesn't even know happened" "why would my militia run? with the new id cards they use in the empire, they would surely go to jail for deserting." "Alexander the Great never broke anyone by hitting them in the flank." etc...

I hear very clearly. I simply disagree. I personally find the arguments against the rule weak. (yes, my opinion.)

All I can say is that I can find multiple historic examples of troops behaiving as the steadfast rules depict. So much so there is a word for it...

I've yet to find an example to back us the other variations on the rule... I think the arguments for it are pretty concise, painting straw dogs only obsccures the debate. You are, of course, free to play it the way you like it.

My background in this hobby is history. I like it when things fall neatly into that niche. That's me though, and that's where my opinion comes from.

sulla
08-08-2010, 01:56
I just wish you couldn't allocate hits on characters in units of the same unit type in 8th outside of challenges. It would make my poorly protected elven fighter characters more viable in units. They already take a hit in that they are not as useful as the 10 or so extra warm bodies I could get instead to beef up my elite, or the extra mage with purple sun or spirit leech or somesuch.

Also, I'd probably outright ban all items that create/prevent irresistable force or modify/prevent/create miscasts. Throw more dice if you want to up your odds of getting IF at your own peril!

johnny2tone
08-08-2010, 04:33
Just thought I'd throw something out of left field since I seem to be the only person concerned about it... but doesn't it bug people that seige engines (ie trebuchet) can kill 20 or so foot soldiers??? There are some commenting here referencing historical examples and such... when the hell did a stone thrower ever get used to take out masses of troops??? Never, that's when. Also if you're looking for examples of how devastating flank charges should be, look no further than the battle of Cannae where Hannibal's outnumbered but better disciplined troops flanked a Roman army and crushed it because when being engaged in the flank and front the troops could not even weild their weapons from the crush of their own weight. I think too many are dismissing the panic and confusion that is caused when a tightly packed unit of infantry is hit in an area that they are not prepared to deal with. There is a reason that almost every general looks to flank the force of his enemy.

chamelion 6
08-08-2010, 05:40
Just thought I'd throw something out of left field since I seem to be the only person concerned about it... but doesn't it bug people that seige engines (ie trebuchet) can kill 20 or so foot soldiers??? There are some commenting here referencing historical examples and such... when the hell did a stone thrower ever get used to take out masses of troops??? Never, that's when. Also if you're looking for examples of how devastating flank charges should be, look no further than the battle of Cannae where Hannibal's outnumbered but better disciplined troops flanked a Roman army and crushed it because when being engaged in the flank and front the troops could not even weild their weapons from the crush of their own weight. I think too many are dismissing the panic and confusion that is caused when a tightly packed unit of infantry is hit in an area that they are not prepared to deal with. There is a reason that almost every general looks to flank the force of his enemy.

The Romans were almost completely encircled... And they stood to fight as the battle went against them. Steadfast...

As for the siege engines. You have a point.

Damocles8
08-08-2010, 06:06
Just because something wasn't written down in the 11th century or so, doesn't mean it didn't happen....

KalEf
08-08-2010, 06:58
I hear very clearly. I simply disagree. I personally find the arguments against the rule weak. (yes, my opinion.)

All I can say is that I can find multiple historic examples of troops behaiving as the steadfast rules depict. So much so there is a word for it...

I've yet to find an example to back us the other variations on the rule... I think the arguments for it are pretty concise, painting straw dogs only obsccures the debate. You are, of course, free to play it the way you like it.

My background in this hobby is history. I like it when things fall neatly into that niche. That's me though, and that's where my opinion comes from.

um first off, sorry about the level of sarcasm on my last post.

second On history; to my knowledge troops standing through such adversity was not the norm. I think through-out history (unless my proff lied to me) being flanked and out numbered broke/ruined units, and the disruption doesn't go far enough to represent this. To be honest though, you can find any odd thing in war history if you want to.

Yes, often, the better trained soldiers were put on the flank. but that would be like having a unit of great swords (actually stubborn) on your left flank, not a string of goblins along the left side of the unit that will fight to the end even if 2 bloodthirsters they haven't managed to hurt, in their flank, killed half of that unit this turn.

on the Tactics aspects; In the art of war, he pushes heavily to use flank charges to make units flee. In fact, he goes even further to make sure you don't surround them, because your enemy will know they can't escape and may fight on.

I'm not saying, don't enjoy what you enjoy about the game. I'm saying the aversion to goblins getting free-bee stubborn in some scenarios, comes from a reasonable place.

chamelion 6
08-08-2010, 08:10
um first off, sorry about the level of sarcasm on my last post.

second On history; to my knowledge troops standing through such adversity was not the norm. I think through-out history (unless my proff lied to me) being flanked and out numbered broke/ruined units, and the disruption doesn't go far enough to represent this. To be honest though, you can find any odd thing in war history if you want to.

Yes, often, the better trained soldiers were put on the flank. but that would be like having a unit of great swords (actually stubborn) on your left flank, not a string of goblins along the left side of the unit that will fight to the end even if 2 bloodthirsters they haven't managed to hurt, in their flank, killed half of that unit this turn.

on the Tactics aspects; In the art of war, he pushes heavily to use flank charges to make units flee. In fact, he goes even further to make sure you don't surround them, because your enemy will know they can't escape and may fight on.

I'm not saying, don't enjoy what you enjoy about the game. I'm saying the aversion to goblins getting free-bee stubborn in some scenarios, comes from a reasonable place.

We're good, I didn't see any hostility, more like frustration...

Just charging a unit in the flank ins't enough to destroy them. The stuff I'm talking about was the norm, not the unusual. If these big units were as easily defeated as people seem to thing they were they would have been a fad, not the dominate military arm for a few hundred years....

When I was talking about vets on the flank I meant within the same unit, not a separate unit to protect the flank. In a block of troops the center and fron't few ranks were the weakest and most green individuals, the sides and rear were the strongest and most experienced, essentally forming a bottle to hold the noob's in check. The guys most likely to break and run, couldn't. The vets on the outside edges pressed into the formation almost literally shoving it in a given direction. The flanks could fight and often carried special close combat weapons (short swords) just for that purpose. Part of their job was to watch the flank and rear so the unit could react if needed. This system originated with the Swiss and spread throuhout Europe. These were the beginnings of the first professional armies and their strength was their determined infantry formations. These big blocks of mostly pikes could, and did, take a lot of abuse without breaking. That's what made the Swiss and the Landsknechts, and Bergundians famous. They were broken, but not easily. Look for battles from the late 1400's into the mid 1600's. A lot of deep thinking went into figuring out how to break up these formations.

Your Prof. didn't lie, but he didn't go into depth on it. In game terms, flaking is a huge advantage in winning. Attascking the flank gives you a +1 CR and removes any rank advantages. Unless you first win the combat the whole steadfast thing is pointless. You are forcing him to roll... All steadfast does is make it harder to completely break him, not impossible, just harder. If he passes his check, which is not a sure thing, he stands and fights... that doesn't mean he's winning. The more pressure you add the more unstable the formation gets.

Personally, I think people are too fixated on steadfast and just assume that because infantry was weak and delicate in 7th that's the way it really was. That's not the case... Defeating thes blocks of infantry was work, serious work. The rule doesn't make them impossible to break, just harder. What's a Gobo's leadership? 6? Passing that roll is FAR from a sure thing. It doesn't mean he will stand, only that he might. It just means the auto break is gone. There never should have been an auto break...

As for it being Gobos? I dunno, they're Ld6 so they aren't completely undisciplined, they're intelligent to form ranks and fight that way... They're not as good at it as a regular human, Ld7, so why does it seem broken relating to them? Britonnian pesants are a Ld5. How valuable is steadfast for them, really? Elves are what, 9? Breaking Brit pesants aint so hard, breaking Elves is gonna take some effort.

I think that's very eloquent portrayal of human pesants, Gobo's and Elves in the same situations.

I dunno... The more this goes, the more I feel like it just work and the more I like it.

Goblin Gonads
08-08-2010, 09:31
Why do people insist on relying on Cannae to proove their table top points? The battle was in o way the norm and in man ways an abberation. Whoever posted that Hannibal's forces were more disciplined was incorrect, better led is not the same as more disciplined. The celts and other troops in the centre od Hanibal's lines were not disciplined troops in the way the Romans were, if they had been Hannibal would not have needed to fight in the centre himself to hold the line together when he bagan to pull it back to lure the Romans in.

Chamelion6 I have to disagree with your interpretation, the Romans at Cannae were not steadfast, they were trapped, encircled and slaughtered like pigs. They had lost their "cohesion" as they advanced into the gap left for them by Hannibal. They didn't fight until the last in the way a steadfast unit in the table top will, they stood in place and died because they had no way out. The history does not support the points you are trying to make with it.

Furthermore the Romans apparently deployed far deeper than normal presenting a much narrower front than normal in an attempt to pierce Hanibal's line by column. In WFB terms they deployed 5 wide 10 deep and gained steadfast as a result. Historically speaking....fat lot of good it did them. They were held in play by shield walls to the front and flanks with cavalry at the rear. They were unable to make use of superior training, skill or arms and most definately lacked cohesion.

They didn't fight back because they could not use their weapons they were so tightly packed. They did not run because they could not break through. They stood and died, that is not steadfast and WFB does not have the game mechanics to represent in 8th what it did in 7th. In WFB terms, the Romans fled and were destryed to a man because of a unit with US of 5 or more behind them. *th editon can't represent this in the same way. Though I do not offer that up in defence of 7th, I actually prefer 8th.

The Romans lost somewhere between 30-50,000 troops at Cannae, Hannibal lost around 8,000. Though recent revisions reduce the number of casualties on both sides and also have a considerable number of romans fleeing through or past the encircling cavalry at the rear. So maybe 8th captures that part better. However, Cannae and deployment in depth does not support your argument that steadfast works from a historical standpoint.

WFB has armies from several "historical periods" from 11th Centuary Bretonians to 16th/17th centuary Empire and Tilea Dogs of War., who knows where races like OnG HE, WE, OK, WoC fit in to the time frame, truth is they probably don't. You could make comparrisons between Samuarai forces and High Elves, but it stretches very thin. My point is, and I hope you would agree, that between the 11th and 17th centuaries, military technology, [planning, tactics and strategies underwent a great many changes. WFB cannot possibly hope to encompass them all, nor shouold it trry. What we can hope for is death dealing rules that reward tactics and follow generic, general military concepts such as flank attacks should benefit the flanker, charging down hill is better than charging uphill, having your buddies close by is going to make you feel better, watching your buddies get hacked apart is going to make you feel worse.

Fredmans
08-08-2010, 13:19
Personally, I think people are too fixated on steadfast and just assume that because infantry was weak and delicate in 7th that's the way it really was. That's not the case... Defeating thes blocks of infantry was work, serious work. The rule doesn't make them impossible to break, just harder. What's a Gobo's leadership? 6? Passing that roll is FAR from a sure thing. It doesn't mean he will stand, only that he might. It just means the auto break is gone. There never should have been an auto break...

As for it being Gobos? I dunno, they're Ld6 so they aren't completely undisciplined, they're intelligent to form ranks and fight that way... They're not as good at it as a regular human, Ld7, so why does it seem broken relating to them? Britonnian pesants are a Ld5. How valuable is steadfast for them, really? Elves are what, 9? Breaking Brit pesants aint so hard, breaking Elves is gonna take some effort.


I agree completely. Steadfast does not equal Unbreakable, especially not for cheap infantry, since cheap infantry mostly come with a terrible Ld. Flanking is still a great advantage. More attacks for you, so that you can inflict enough damage to negate a potential rank disadvantage. You need a sufficiently deep unit yourself to engage the enemy in the front, while the "hitty" unit tries to get to the flank.

/Fredmans

chamelion 6
08-08-2010, 15:53
Why do people insist on relying on Cannae to proove their table top points? The battle was in o way the norm and in man ways an abberation. Whoever posted that Hannibal's forces were more disciplined was incorrect, better led is not the same as more disciplined. The celts and other troops in the centre od Hanibal's lines were not disciplined troops in the way the Romans were, if they had been Hannibal would not have needed to fight in the centre himself to hold the line together when he bagan to pull it back to lure the Romans in.

Chamelion6 I have to disagree with your interpretation, the Romans at Cannae were not steadfast, they were trapped, encircled and slaughtered like pigs. They had lost their "cohesion" as they advanced into the gap left for them by Hannibal. They didn't fight until the last in the way a steadfast unit in the table top will, they stood in place and died because they had no way out. The history does not support the points you are trying to make with it.

Furthermore the Romans apparently deployed far deeper than normal presenting a much narrower front than normal in an attempt to pierce Hanibal's line by column. In WFB terms they deployed 5 wide 10 deep and gained steadfast as a result. Historically speaking....fat lot of good it did them. They were held in play by shield walls to the front and flanks with cavalry at the rear. They were unable to make use of superior training, skill or arms and most definately lacked cohesion.

They didn't fight back because they could not use their weapons they were so tightly packed. They did not run because they could not break through. They stood and died, that is not steadfast and WFB does not have the game mechanics to represent in 8th what it did in 7th. In WFB terms, the Romans fled and were destryed to a man because of a unit with US of 5 or more behind them. *th editon can't represent this in the same way. Though I do not offer that up in defence of 7th, I actually prefer 8th.

The Romans lost somewhere between 30-50,000 troops at Cannae, Hannibal lost around 8,000. Though recent revisions reduce the number of casualties on both sides and also have a considerable number of romans fleeing through or past the encircling cavalry at the rear. So maybe 8th captures that part better. However, Cannae and deployment in depth does not support your argument that steadfast works from a historical standpoint.

WFB has armies from several "historical periods" from 11th Centuary Bretonians to 16th/17th centuary Empire and Tilea Dogs of War., who knows where races like OnG HE, WE, OK, WoC fit in to the time frame, truth is they probably don't. You could make comparrisons between Samuarai forces and High Elves, but it stretches very thin. My point is, and I hope you would agree, that between the 11th and 17th centuaries, military technology, [planning, tactics and strategies underwent a great many changes. WFB cannot possibly hope to encompass them all, nor shouold it trry. What we can hope for is death dealing rules that reward tactics and follow generic, general military concepts such as flank attacks should benefit the flanker, charging down hill is better than charging uphill, having your buddies close by is going to make you feel better, watching your buddies get hacked apart is going to make you feel worse.

I didn't bring up Cannae... That battle has never fit any set of rules well and always fall on special rules to make it work. However, I think it exemplifies steadfast better than any game mechanic in 7th. The Romans formed deep As they were pressed on all sides they continued to fight until, supposedly, they couldn't fight any longer. There was no failed moral check, there was no flee into an enemy unit. You could probably manage that in 8th rather nicely, where as in 7th the "Romans" would have auto broke before they could be surrounded.

As for the last part of your post, I agree. I've made the same argument myself. 8th, to me, draws on the fundamental dynamics between the differrent troop types. It does so sufficently that many historical tactics now become viable in the game. It abandons clunky artificial concepts like march blocking and redirecting. 8th allows me to draw my own historic relationships and apply historic ideas, that appeals to me, so that's how I approach it.

As for where I'd place the game in general terms, it would be around the period of the Italian Wars, from about 1470 to about 1550. Almost all the troop types in the game as well as most of the formations and dynamics can be found there. It meshes very, very well. Other periods don't work so well because they are too narrow in game terms. So while I'd never make an analogy comparing the game to ancients, I will try to make it work, at least to illustrate what ever point is being discussed.

To sum it up, my opinion is 8th edition is not a historic wargame, but it draws deeply from history for it's mechanics, 6th edition, and its cousin 7th drew from balanced competative conventions for it's mechanics, the the ideas were more abstract and controlled, units more like chess pieces. To me, 8th is more organic, 6th / 7th more mechanical. Choose your flavor, it's pretty obivious which I prefer.

Kayosiv
08-08-2010, 18:19
A lot of people are forgetting BSB rerolls and use of generals leadership when checking steadfast. Every army has access to a battle standard bearer and a general with either leadership 9 or 10.

chamelion 6
08-08-2010, 18:38
A lot of people are forgetting BSB rerolls and use of generals leadership when checking steadfast. Every army has access to a battle standard bearer and a general with either leadership 9 or 10.

Yes, but the general and BSB can't be everywhere at once. That's why players need to stop trying to defeat the individual units and focus on the army as a whole. Focus your strenghts against a focal point where the other player demonstrates a weakness.

If you think things throug properly you negate the BSB and General.

ewar
08-08-2010, 19:49
I like these changes - I think people need to remember that this is not a simulation - it's a GAME.

One where both players are supposed to have fun. Yesterday I had the Sun+Scroll combo used on me. It just has NO place in a game meant to be fun for both players.

Let me put this in perspective: I drive to Wales for a weekend of gaming, bring tables, models, scenery etc. Get set up, Vamp player gets first turn, his second turn he flies up and tries to Purple Sun me, fortunately he only has 3 PD due to poor winds roll so doesn't use the scroll. My turn I try and break up my line to minimise the damage, next turn bam 1/3 of my army is dead and completely unstoppable by a 35pt item.

For those in doubt - THIS IS NOT FUN. Not for him (much) and definitely not for me. It takes literally zero skill and even worse, absolutely NO LUCK.

The only reason I didn't concede there and then is because my slann passed his LOS! roll.

What is the point in playing a game like this? Now, as I'm playing with mates, I don't think he'd do it again. But in pick up games? Daft.

I'm happy that 8th is popular, as warhammer definitely needed a pick me up, though less so with some of the rules.

sulla
08-08-2010, 20:29
One where both players are supposed to have fun. Yesterday I had the Sun+Scroll combo used on me. It just has NO place in a game meant to be fun for both players.So ban it for friendly games (or just flat out ban it altogether). I still remember virus grenades... GW do make these mistakes. If you wait for them to fix it, you will be waiting for 9th edition.

Gazak Blacktoof
08-08-2010, 20:31
I agree, some of the outlandsih stuff deffinitely needs nuking for the sake of the sanity of most gamers.

So far we've found several issues with the 8th edition rules so far.

1) Spells- some of them are outrageously good and will swing the entire game.
2) Templates- far too much damage from warmachines, breath weapons and the like
3) Terrain- the wackines needs to be toned down. Shifting some of the focus away from lists and toward the terrain setup is good, but frankly the terrain in the rulebook is too intrusive.
4) Buildings- Good infantry are impossible to shift without auto hit ranged attacks, spells, a heavy dose of luck or an even more elite infantry unit.


The other gamers in my small group are already beginning to long for a return to the dawn of 6th edition yet again.

Gork or Possibly Mork
08-08-2010, 21:29
The Romans were almost completely encircled... And they stood to fight as the battle went against them. Steadfast...

As for the siege engines. You have a point.

More like they were surrounded...and stood to fight because there was no where to go, they either needed to carve a path out or die.
Survival...:p

Should we make a rule if your surrounded your unbreakable and will fight to the last man? No

I still say steadfast should have a way to be negated other than simply having more ranks than the opponent. Even if it's something simple like...If a steadfast unit is disrupted and loses combat they must test on thier own Ld.
They'd still be allowed a bsb re-roll so all is not lost.

Im in the camp that I like the rule in general but I think it's slightly too powerful with general and BSB nearby. Yeah I know they won't always be in range but most of time they will and there are plenty of ways to minimize the dangers if there not.

As for the super spells thing another thing I don't like is the lores don't scale well at all for small games and I really do enjoy smaller games sometimes.

My group and I have already kind of houseruled this one. We kind of have an unspoken agreement not to bring a lord to under 2000pts.

Justice And Rule
08-08-2010, 22:56
I still say steadfast should have a way to be negated other than simply having more ranks than the opponent. Even if it's something simple like...If a steadfast unit is disrupted and loses combat they must test on thier own Ld.
They'd still be allowed a bsb re-roll so all is not lost.

How do you count ranks when two 5x5 units attack one 10x5 unit? This solution seems good until you try to implement multi-unit combats with models and other things like that. It gets too complex and fiddly too quickly. And losing Steadfast on disrupted is ridiculously powerful for flankers; you'll make hordes too fragile to even consider if a 12 man unit on the side of an 60-man unit can rout them due to breaking steadfast and easily getting a favorable CR because they are only attacking at one rank.

Paraelix
08-08-2010, 22:59
A lot of people are forgetting BSB rerolls and use of generals leadership when checking steadfast. Every army has access to a battle standard bearer and a general with either leadership 9 or 10.

1) Engage general/BSBs unit.
2)Conduct their combat first.
3)Kill them.
4) Profit.

SamVimes
08-08-2010, 23:00
1) Engage general/BSBs unit.
2)Conduct their combat first.
3)Kill them.
4) Profit.

Ever the optimist I see :D

Gork or Possibly Mork
08-08-2010, 23:16
1) Engage general/BSBs unit.
2)Conduct their combat first.
3)Kill them.
4) Profit.

Couldn't they put them in a unit with FC and other heroes taking up the front rank. I suppose you could still challenge them.


How do you count ranks when two 5x5 units attack one 10x5 unit? This solution seems good until you try to implement multi-unit combats with models and other things like that. It gets too complex and fiddly too quickly. And losing Steadfast on disrupted is ridiculously powerful for flankers; you'll make hordes too fragile to even consider if a 12 man unit on the side of an 60-man unit can rout them due to breaking steadfast and easily getting a favorable CR because they are only attacking at one rank.

Maybe it's not the best idea but in that post I suggested not being able to use the general's inspiring presence ld on steadfast if disrupted. You'd
still get steadfast on the unit's own ld and a re-roll for BSB nearby.

Amnar
09-08-2010, 02:10
I like these changes - I think people need to remember that this is not a simulation - it's a GAME.

One where both players are supposed to have fun. Yesterday I had the Sun+Scroll combo used on me. It just has NO place in a game meant to be fun for both players.

Let me put this in perspective: I drive to Wales for a weekend of gaming, bring tables, models, scenery etc. Get set up, Vamp player gets first turn, his second turn he flies up and tries to Purple Sun me, fortunately he only has 3 PD due to poor winds roll so doesn't use the scroll. My turn I try and break up my line to minimise the damage, next turn bam 1/3 of my army is dead and completely unstoppable by a 35pt item.

For those in doubt - THIS IS NOT FUN. Not for him (much) and definitely not for me. It takes literally zero skill and even worse, absolutely NO LUCK.

The only reason I didn't concede there and then is because my slann passed his LOS! roll.

What is the point in playing a game like this? Now, as I'm playing with mates, I don't think he'd do it again. But in pick up games? Daft.

I'm happy that 8th is popular, as warhammer definitely needed a pick me up, though less so with some of the rules.

Does the slaan even get LOS? Agreed, I win spells are boring

Maoriboy007
09-08-2010, 03:20
Just wondering how people would feel about these as house rules since alot of people seem to be complaining about 8th not being as tactical etc.

[QUOTE=Gork or Possibly Mork;4891418]Magic
1. When rolling 5 or more dice to cast, rolling double ones means the spell cannot be cast with IF..

Nah, the system is fine as it is, you may as well get rid of the loss of concentration rule while you're at it.


2. Players may still attempt to dispel a spell with IF but to dispel it they must dispel it with IF..

Its more about the overpowered spells and the stupid item/ability combos that either give IF or protect from miscasts that are a problem.


Combat
3. Units don't have the option to reform after sucessfully restraining pursuit..

I can't really see the problem with it, especially as you cant auto destroy fleeing units unless you run them down.


4. Disrupted units can only claim steadfast if within 12" of the General or BSB.

There really should be a trade of between disrupting units and steadfast.

Zoolander
09-08-2010, 22:53
I wouldnt say it's fine as it is, but I also wouldn't say that adding those changes would help, save for the suggestion about steadfast. I do believe that makes sense and gives you a reason to flank again.

KalEf
09-08-2010, 23:22
We're good, I didn't see any hostility, more like frustration...

Just charging a unit in the flank ins't enough to destroy them. The stuff I'm talking about was the norm, not the unusual. If these big units were as easily defeated as people seem to thing they were they would have been a fad, not the dominate military arm for a few hundred years....

When I was talking about vets on the flank I meant within the same unit, not a separate unit to protect the flank. In a block of troops the center and fron't few ranks were the weakest and most green individuals, the sides and rear were the strongest and most experienced, essentally forming a bottle to hold the noob's in check. The guys most likely to break and run, couldn't. The vets on the outside edges pressed into the formation almost literally shoving it in a given direction. The flanks could fight and often carried special close combat weapons (short swords) just for that purpose. Part of their job was to watch the flank and rear so the unit could react if needed. This system originated with the Swiss and spread throuhout Europe. These were the beginnings of the first professional armies and their strength was their determined infantry formations. These big blocks of mostly pikes could, and did, take a lot of abuse without breaking. That's what made the Swiss and the Landsknechts, and Bergundians famous. They were broken, but not easily. Look for battles from the late 1400's into the mid 1600's. A lot of deep thinking went into figuring out how to break up these formations.

Your Prof. didn't lie, but he didn't go into depth on it. In game terms, flaking is a huge advantage in winning. Attascking the flank gives you a +1 CR and removes any rank advantages. Unless you first win the combat the whole steadfast thing is pointless. You are forcing him to roll... All steadfast does is make it harder to completely break him, not impossible, just harder. If he passes his check, which is not a sure thing, he stands and fights... that doesn't mean he's winning. The more pressure you add the more unstable the formation gets.

Personally, I think people are too fixated on steadfast and just assume that because infantry was weak and delicate in 7th that's the way it really was. That's not the case... Defeating thes blocks of infantry was work, serious work. The rule doesn't make them impossible to break, just harder. What's a Gobo's leadership? 6? Passing that roll is FAR from a sure thing. It doesn't mean he will stand, only that he might. It just means the auto break is gone. There never should have been an auto break...

As for it being Gobos? I dunno, they're Ld6 so they aren't completely undisciplined, they're intelligent to form ranks and fight that way... They're not as good at it as a regular human, Ld7, so why does it seem broken relating to them? Britonnian pesants are a Ld5. How valuable is steadfast for them, really? Elves are what, 9? Breaking Brit pesants aint so hard, breaking Elves is gonna take some effort.

I think that's very eloquent portrayal of human pesants, Gobo's and Elves in the same situations.

I dunno... The more this goes, the more I feel like it just work and the more I like it.

well with all the people arguing on the flank charge and how devastating it was -historically- lets just say the verdicts out. And it would be very difficult to find statistics on the fighting value and moral of people hit in the flank.

I wasn't trying to say that the people on the flank of a unit weren't special at all. Even though there would be "vets" in a goblin unit, In game, I don't think they would be sooooo much better than the other goblins, that their basic stat line wouldn't represent them well/ compensate for the even suckier goblins :D . Plus in the bloodthirster example, they would all be dead...

In the examples given, If there weren't modifiers then... they shouldn't have modifiers at all. out numbered, out wounded, and flanked... to me, there should be at least some. I have not seen a goblin take a LD test without rerollable ld 9 in the past 5 games I've played.


To sum it up, my opinion is 8th edition is not a historic wargame, but it draws deeply from history for it's mechanics, 6th edition, and its cousin 7th drew from balanced competative conventions for it's mechanics, the the ideas were more abstract and controlled, units more like chess pieces. To me, 8th is more organic, 6th / 7th more mechanical. Choose your flavor, it's pretty obivious which I prefer.

... this is probably more true than I care to admit. :shifty:

Dungeon_Lawyer
09-08-2010, 23:49
no TLOS and no pre-measuring and It would have been gravy. Random charges is ok...

It also would be nice if flank charges meant more....

The magic phase is crazy but getting used to it.

I dont see how any of your suggestions would make the game tactical again--it just not that anymore :(

Justice And Rule
10-08-2010, 04:34
no TLOS and no pre-measuring and It would have been gravy. Random charges is ok...

I don't understand what premeasuring has to do with anything. Random Charges eliminates makes it so premeasuring doesn't assure you anything, so I don't see the problem with it. TLOS, I'm ambivalent on.


It also would be nice if flank charges meant more....

They mean a ton already, though! Two ranks or more ranks hitting one rank (And not wasting kills by killing the entire front rank) and bonuses to CR means a lot more than people make out. A combined front/flank charge will wreck a lot of units quicker than people will admit.


I dont see how any of your suggestions would make the game tactical again--it just not that anymore :(

Yeah, it's not a game where a single eagle can fly around and stop a unit from marching. What wonderful tactics; I believe Hannibal used that against the Romans at Lake Trasimene.

This lamentation of "Where have the tactics gone?" needs to stop. Tactics are different, not gone. They've eliminated foolish stuff such as march blocking and distance judging, not movement and hand-to-hand. It's no longer a fiddly, measuring game. Thank God for that.

Isha blessed
10-08-2010, 05:01
no TLOS and no pre-measuring and It would have been gravy. Random charges is ok...

It also would be nice if flank charges meant more....

The magic phase is crazy but getting used to it.

+1 I very much agree with all of that.

rocdocta
10-08-2010, 05:24
The Romans were almost completely encircled... And they stood to fight as the battle went against them. Steadfast...

As for the siege engines. You have a point.

they stood only cos they werent able to flee. they were trapped and werent able to defend themselves. if there was an opening, they would have fled. there wasnt and they were all butchered. its not as tho they had a chice in the matter. a unit is just as able to remain in place simply by having more ranks even when flanked?! as someone that went to duntroon (army officer college) that is just an absurd rule made up by people that cant grasp warfare.

cybercaine
10-08-2010, 05:27
I like the game as is for the most part. I don't think any of the suggested changes should be implemented.

rocdocta
10-08-2010, 05:40
This lamentation of "Where have the tactics gone?" needs to stop. Tactics are different, not gone. They've eliminated foolish stuff such as march blocking and distance judging, not movement and hand-to-hand. It's no longer a fiddly, measuring game. Thank God for that.

one may call it march blocking, distance judging...others call it skill and strategic planning. whereas 8th is a hope game...
hope i roll more than 7 for the charge range...
hope he doesnt roll 6 dice and get purple sun...
hope he fails the ld10 steadfast with reroll...
hope my frenzied blood knights dont fail their reroll on 10 to not be sucked into a trap...
hope his cannon misfires as it is placed exactly where he wants it...
hope all of my random dice rolls beat all of his random dice rolls...

people lament something when they miss it. I mean 8th is a great game for people without grasp of war, history, or what really happens...you know... teenagers.
Hope 9th is here soon to replace the abortion of 8th.
Hope I can find my 40k models to use with while i ride out the WHFB random action storm.

chamelion 6
10-08-2010, 09:01
they stood only cos they werent able to flee. they were trapped and werent able to defend themselves. if there was an opening, they would have fled. there wasnt and they were all butchered. its not as tho they had a chice in the matter. a unit is just as able to remain in place simply by having more ranks even when flanked?! as someone that went to duntroon (army officer college) that is just an absurd rule made up by people that cant grasp warfare.
You fail to understand the mechanics of how they came to be encircled, or the mechanics of the rule.
Hint... The Romans didn't start the battle encircled, and not everyone charged them at once. The process was methodical, not instant.


one may call it march blocking, distance judging...others call it skill and strategic planning. whereas 8th is a hope game...
hope i roll more than 7 for the charge range...
hope he doesnt roll 6 dice and get purple sun...
hope he fails the ld10 steadfast with reroll...
hope my frenzied blood knights dont fail their reroll on 10 to not be sucked into a trap...
hope his cannon misfires as it is placed exactly where he wants it...
hope all of my random dice rolls beat all of his random dice rolls...

people lament something when they miss it. I mean 8th is a great game for people without grasp of war, history, or what really happens...you know... teenagers.
Hope 9th is here soon to replace the abortion of 8th.
Hope I can find my 40k models to use with while i ride out the WHFB random action storm.

You call steadfast artificial yet you defend march blocking as historical????

I realize Napoleon was not really of the quality of most proper wargame generals, but he was reasonably successful at the real thing to make his insights into the subject of some value here.

To quote the man himself, "I do not want a good General, I want a lucky one".

Sounds like he appreciated rolling lots of dice too. Then again, he probably didn't attend duntroon, so what does he know...................

Kamenwati
10-08-2010, 10:41
One minor thing I dislike about 8th and would like see changed is that fleeing units don't net you any points unless destroyed outright or they manage to run off the board.

I understand the gameplay reason they did this. (I don't agree with it but I do understand it) However, most armies were defeated because the morale of the men faltered and they broke and ran. Rare were the battles where 75+% of an army lay slain on the ground.

chamelion 6
10-08-2010, 13:57
One minor thing I dislike about 8th and would like see changed is that fleeing units don't net you any points unless destroyed outright or they manage to run off the board.

I understand the gameplay reason they did this. (I don't agree with it but I do understand it) However, most armies were defeated because the morale of the men faltered and they broke and ran. Rare were the battles where 75+% of an army lay slain on the ground.

If we're talking about the high casualty rate in 8th, especially with the hoard and steadfast rules, then I'll have to grant you this argument. I doubt at the end of the day the casualty rate was even approaching 50% and was probably far less most of the time. Most writers of the time wildly exagerated numbers all the way around and it's unlikely anyone really knew how many people were fighting much less how many died. Most reports were relly just guesses.

It is definately an abstraction. I reconcile it this way. I don't think of the wounded and removed models as killed, so much as incapacated and unable to fight. Killed, wounded, or reduced to curling up in an infant position.. But not all dead. All I can say is that you are correct, if the models are strictly those killed, then the casualty rate is much too high.

But for me personally, it's much easier to get my head around this abstractions than many of the ones in earlier editions. Personal preference, I guess.

Ironhand
10-08-2010, 14:29
I don't understand what premeasuring has to do with anything. Random Charges eliminates makes it so premeasuring doesn't assure you anything, so I don't see the problem with it. TLOS, I'm ambivalent on.



They mean a ton already, though! Two ranks or more ranks hitting one rank (And not wasting kills by killing the entire front rank) and bonuses to CR means a lot more than people make out. A combined front/flank charge will wreck a lot of units quicker than people will admit.



Yeah, it's not a game where a single eagle can fly around and stop a unit from marching. What wonderful tactics; I believe Hannibal used that against the Romans at Lake Trasimene.

This lamentation of "Where have the tactics gone?" needs to stop. Tactics are different, not gone. They've eliminated foolish stuff such as march blocking and distance judging, not movement and hand-to-hand. It's no longer a fiddly, measuring game. Thank God for that.

What Justice and Rule said. In the first place 8th Edition hasn't been out long enough for a reasoned appraisal of its merits and flaws to take place. What we're hearing is the whining of folks whose pet gimmick (NOT tactic) has been removed and they're unable to adapt.

8th Edition is in fact drawing closer to most historical wargaming rules, which have had things like random charge distance for 20 years or more.

Malorian
10-08-2010, 14:38
1. When rolling 5 or more dice to cast, rolling double ones means the spell cannot be cast with IF.

I disagree with this. Big spells require lots of dice, expecially if you are a low level wizard, and miscasts should be possible as well as IF.

If instead you intended that you could still miscast and but just not IF then I'm still against it as it would just mean everyone would max out at 4 dice. The issue is with people's defense against miscast and not with the magic system.

2. Players may still attempt to dispel a spell with IF but to dispel it they must dispel it with IF.

If you compare this to the ASF + ASL system it would mean in this case that first of all you wuld need double 6s to even have a chance and then still need to tie or beat the roll to cast.

3. Units don't have the option to reform after sucessfully restraining pursuit.

I'm on the fence about this one. It would depend on how you changed other parts of the system.

4. Disrupted units can only claim steadfast if within 12" of the General or BSB.

Not enough. Disrupted units shouldn't get steadfast. Period.

Justice And Rule
10-08-2010, 15:55
one may call it march blocking, distance judging...others call it skill and strategic planning.

No, people call that artificial game mechanics. They aren't reflective of any sort of real mechanism in war; troops don't back up


whereas 8th is a hope game...

Indeed. 7th Edition was really more about the despair of measurement and power-listing. Not really much for hope.


hope i roll more than 7 for the charge range...

I hope my opponent isn't a dick and gives me the extra 1/16th of an inch I need to contact my troops. Otherwise he gets an auto-strikefirst charge in which he can wipeout my front rank so that I can't strike back, break my unit effortlessly and run it down despite him only having 5 guys and me having 40.

Fun Fact: Pyrrhus was a real dick in letting the Romans get that incredibly minuscule amount of charge distance that they needed, which is why he gave the Romans so much trouble.


hope he doesnt roll 6 dice and get purple sun...

I hope that I have a spell caddy and enough dispel dice to have even a chance of surviving two turns against this horrifying magic build. Man, magic was really awesome under 7th edition. And by "really awesome", I mean "Jumping between frightfully dull and massively overpowered".


hope he fails the ld10 steadfast with reroll...

I sure hope I'd be smart enough to target his leader/BSB to bring his leadership down a 50/50. Otherwise I wouldn't be recognizing the huge tactical advantage of eliminating his command to benefit from their loss of leadership.

Also: Do generals now have a command range of 56" or something? It seems like everyone automatically assumes that a steadfast unit will be right next to the general and BSB.


hope my frenzied blood knights dont fail their reroll on 10 to not be sucked into a trap...

I hope that my frenzied units aren't automatically attracted to a single bird flying in the sky like an ADHD kid running after a butterfly. That'd be pretty stupid and nonsensical, wouldn't it? Wow, a good leader can improve the chances of a frenzied unit keeping it's composure?! WHAT A COMPLETELY OUT-THERE CONCEPT!!


hope his cannon misfires as it is placed exactly where he wants it...

I hope so, too, because apparently my skirmishers have yet to get there. Whoops, I'm talking imaginary tactics for a game where they no longer exist. I need to learn to stop doing that!

It's not like someone who was experienced would misjudge a distance, anyways. Let's unfairly hurt new gamers because the old gamer is used to something more and has no real reflection on the quality of generalship. We're really creating an awesome wargame here!


hope all of my random dice rolls beat all of his random dice rolls...

I hope I was playing 7th edition correctly, because I seem to remember a lot of random dice rolling then, too.


people lament something when they miss it.

Yes, and you are lamenting about foolish, unrealistic game mechanics that don't make any real sense outside of the system itself.


I mean 8th is a great game for people without grasp of war, history, or what really happens...you know... teenagers.

Judging by your statement that march-blocking and eying distance is somehow a massive part of strategy when they are game mechanics and have no basis in real life, that must make you a pre-teen :cries:.

Or maybe it's just indicative that you have no real basis for your arguments, so you put together a hasty and ill-constructed list and finished it off with an ad-hominem attack about "age" to somehow legitimize it.

I do believe "complaining about not being able to use stale and unrealistic game mechanics" is a fun game for all ages. It's posters like you who give the detractors of 8th a bad reputation.


Hope 9th is here soon to replace the abortion of 8th.

I hope that we return to a joyless measurefest where


Hope I can find my 40k models to use with while i ride out the WHFB random action storm.

So random running distance, premeasurement, and TONS UPON TONS OF DICE ROLLING are okay for 40k, but not for WH? I hope you find some consistency in your double standards.