PDA

View Full Version : Unnecessary rulebook rules?



Grimstonefire
11-08-2010, 23:18
Which warhammer rulebook rules do you think are unnecessary, either because they achieve something that could be done a quicker/ simpler way, or because the whole concept of what it is isn't needed at all in the warhammer game?

It may help to give a page reference, so people can understand which one specifically you mean.

Malakai
12-08-2010, 01:21
Why don't you give an example to start your thread off?

Seth the Dark
12-08-2010, 01:23
Probably the whole 'footprint' issue is rather annoying as 25 mm can benefit from it but not 20mm when it comes to mounted models.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
12-08-2010, 06:28
Stop the whining and start enjoying the game. Its more fun that wat, really! ;)

Vandelan
12-08-2010, 06:58
The rule that prevents you from using anything other than a special weapon whilst wielding one or more.

There didn't really need to be a rule like that.

RanaldLoec
12-08-2010, 07:10
I find most the GW rules ok so far but when it comes to my rulebook there is 1 house rule I enforce religiously

NO STICKY FINGERS

I don't like to find jam or choclate finger prints when I'm rolling for spells etc etc.

Yrrdead
12-08-2010, 08:27
Okay I'm going to whine a bit since you guys aren't.

TLOS - Totally unneccesary. LOS abstraction rules in 7th were rather good. Honestly i can't think of a game in 7th where there was an argument over this. Now to be fair it hasn't been a huge issue as most people have been pretty cool about it.....But.

As soon as turn 3 or 4 rolls around and the game gets tight, peoples models all have laser night vision scopes.


An abstract system is not only more "elegant" but it also has a much broader scope. Plus you didn't get people bitching about your cool rock bases.

peterburstrom
12-08-2010, 08:34
What about the "sea creature" rule?

On a more serious note, I concur with the weapons thingies. It creates more problems than it solves. Why can't I choose to use my lance when I charge Dragon Princes with a flaming sword for example?

Urgat
12-08-2010, 08:38
The rule that prevents you from using anything other than a special weapon whilst wielding one or more.

There didn't really need to be a rule like that.

This one, it's really the only one that I look at and wonder "why the heck did they need to add that?".

Avian
12-08-2010, 09:50
In half the cases where they talk about needing line of sight* they also require that the thing be in your front 90 arc.
In other cases they don't, especially in older army books** and in these cases it can lead to drastically different results.

It would be much easier if they removed the individual mentions of needing to be in the front arc and just put that in the main line of sight rule on page 10.



* ex: line of sight to charge things

** ex: if a greenskin unit rolls a 6 for its Animosity test (forcing it to move towards the closest enemy it can see), it might be that the closest unit that can be seen is right next to the unit and only seen because an Orc had his head glued on looking off to the side

Balerion
12-08-2010, 10:05
ASF rerolls. It seems like the entire purpose of that addition was to temporarily patch up the HE armybook when it could've sufficed without the hamfisted rules jam.

N1AK
12-08-2010, 10:17
ASF rerolls. It seems like the entire purpose of that addition was to temporarily patch up the HE armybook when it could've sufficed without the hamfisted rules jam.

Or to make ASF worth considering in a game where striking order has become less critical.





As to only being able to use a 'special weapon' I assume the reason is to avoid things like taking an characters with a standard weapon loadout to deal with one type of opponent and another to deal with Monsters, Characters or something else. Not that this automatically makes it worthwhile.

kyussinchains
12-08-2010, 10:33
TLOS is a joke, I'm sure most of my group will be happy sticking with the 7th edition guidelines, it was simple and effective and I can't recall ever having a dispute about it, now as enyoss likes to mount his eagle and griffon riding models on big rocks to give a centrepiece feel, he's going to be accused of cheating when it benefits him, and he'll feel it's unfair when it benefits his opponent.

It's a perfect example of GW 'fixing' something which isn't remotely broken

peterburstrom
12-08-2010, 11:07
The TLOS thing just might work out if we start to do all terrain into scale. Today, there are barely any trees in Warhammer that's higher than three times a normal guy, which should equal something like 6 meters, a very measly tree indeed. We don't have buildings that we could possibly cram more than 10 guys into comfortably. Most rivers should be much wider than the measly one guy or two that you normally see in tournaments. Have you ever seen a swamp or marsh in real life that you safely can throw a rock straight over in any angle?

Arnizipal
12-08-2010, 13:46
I'm really at a loss as to why they changed the way warmachine crew works.
The new rules seem a bit fiddly, if not incredibly unrealistic.

WarmbloodedLizard
12-08-2010, 13:53
TLOS. no abstract game should have (almost) non-abstract rules. it just doesn't work.

Grimstonefire
12-08-2010, 14:43
Some examples of things I think are unecessary;

overkill from wound multiplying weapons.
Cavalry and chariots afraid of flaming attacks
combining ward saves with MR
All the actual rules for obscure terrain.

CrystalSphere
12-08-2010, 14:59
I dislike true line of sight the most, as i see it as way for GW to discredit the use of non-GW models in games and force players to buy/make scenography, also encouraging players to buy GW forests and not from other companies. Other rules are bad but i think that one is the worst of them by far.


The TLOS thing just might work out if we start to do all terrain into scale. Today, there are barely any trees in Warhammer that's higher than three times a normal guy, which should equal something like 6 meters, a very measly tree indeed. We don't have buildings that we could possibly cram more than 10 guys into comfortably. Most rivers should be much wider than the measly one guy or two that you normally see in tournaments. Have you ever seen a swamp or marsh in real life that you safely can throw a rock straight over in any angle?


A guy in warhammer do not represent a single guy, buy many soldiers. If you were to scale everything correctly (from range of weapons to forest height) then you would need a very big table to play on. The game is an abstract representation of a battlefield, it is not mean to be 100% scale accurate.

Caboose123
12-08-2010, 15:15
I agree with these ones:
- The silly terrain rules.
- TLOS
- Flaming Weapons causing Fear in certain units types

And also:
- Standard Bearers dying when they flee.

Lord Malorne
12-08-2010, 15:19
Does the 8thed book also have the 'Most Important Rule of All'?

Lander
12-08-2010, 15:40
What about the "sea creature" rule?

Hopefully this is a portent for more monsters to show up in army books.

Spiney Norman
12-08-2010, 15:50
For me the most unnecessary rule was the terrain generation system, I didn't have a problem with them being a bit creative with the mysterious terrain, I didn't even have a problem with the thing where you didn't know what effect the terrain would have until you set foot in it, what bugged me the most was that only 1/6 of all the rivers or patches of woods in the world are not mysterious...

Still, it was fairly easy to figure out our own terrain gen chart.

Scallat
12-08-2010, 16:04
Flaming attacks letting your reroll to wound against enemies garrisoned in a building. Or frenzied troops not being able to claim a parry save when using a hand weapon and shield.

Those both seemed like wierdly specific things to add considering the broad strokes approach the rest of the rules have taken.

Also, devestating charge, at least until the next army book.

Arnizipal
12-08-2010, 17:16
Does the 8thed book also have the 'Most Important Rule of All'?
Yes, on the left sidebar of page two :)


Flaming attacks letting your reroll to wound against enemies garrisoned in a building. Or frenzied troops not being able to claim a parry save when using a hand weapon and shield.
I find them characterful. Frenzied troops are far too enraged to care for their own safety, and flaming attacks can set buildings on fire which is represented by a rerollable to-wound roll.

Lord Malorne
12-08-2010, 18:00
Yes, on the left sidebar of page two :)


I hate that rule!

enyoss
12-08-2010, 18:13
TLOS is a joke, I'm sure most of my group will be happy sticking with the 7th edition guidelines, it was simple and effective and I can't recall ever having a dispute about it, now as enyoss likes to mount his eagle and griffon riding models on big rocks to give a centrepiece feel, he's going to be accused of cheating when it benefits him, and he'll feel it's unfair when it benefits his opponent.


I had completely forgotten about that bloody eagle. That rock adds an extra 2" to the height and I can't really see how to get around it :(. I also think that TLOS seems like an unwelcome change from what I've seen on paper, although I'll have to get some games in before making my mind up.



Cavalry and chariots afraid of flaming attacks


I actually really like this rule as it harks back to 3rd edition. I seem to recall that back then Warhorses were immune to fear caused by fire though, which gave heavy cavalry an exemption they don't have now. It's a bit strange if Dragon Princes are afraid of fire though, to be honest :).

Having just got my grubby mitts on the 8th edition rulebook I'm actually shocked at how much has changed, and how the rules seem to have got more complicated rather than being dumbed down.

UberBeast
12-08-2010, 18:25
"either because they achieve something that could be done a quicker/ simpler way, or because the whole concept of what it is isn't needed at all in the warhammer game"

This fits the entire 8th edition.

What's that? Our last edition of the game is almost three years old? Time to screw it all up for no reason at all!

Desert Rain
12-08-2010, 18:38
TLoS is the most unnecessary rule in the game, nothing good has ever come from it.

The terrain rules are good ideas, but they went way overboard when the implemented them in the game. It is just weird that 5/6ths of all terrain is magical, strange and trying to eat you.

pointyteeth
12-08-2010, 18:45
Also, devestating charge, at least until the next army book.

It has a use. Read Potion of Foolhardiness :D

WiganUltra
12-08-2010, 19:06
TLOS was stupid when they put it in 40k and I was surprised to see it also added to Fantasy. Like people have said, trying to shoehorn in one aspect of realism when the rest of the rules and the models are all by necessity quite abstract and not to scale just makes no sense whatsoever, takes longer to work out and is more likely to cause dispute.



Extra Attack:
This means you get an extra attack.


I've only ever played Fantasy once before (during 6th), so maybe someone can explain it to me, but so far I can't think of any possible reason why this would need to be a seperate special rule??

Grimstonefire
12-08-2010, 19:41
My general feeling about the warhammer game is that 8th should have been the time to simplify the game in places, not to add a load more rules on. I know there is always a place in the market for a really complex wargame, but adding in things that actually slow things down or are unnecessary doesn't really help.

@WiganUltra
Obviously they have plans to split which things get it that don't need to be frenzied.

Arnizipal
12-08-2010, 20:12
@WiganUltra
Obviously they have plans to split which things get it that don't need to be frenzied.
Like extra handweapons...

WiganUltra
12-08-2010, 21:54
Obviously they have plans to split which things get it that don't need to be frenzied.


Like extra handweapons...

Well I still don't get why something as simple as +1A can't be explained within the hand weapon / frenzy / whatever rules. Especially since the rule only states that models with the extra attack rule get an extra attack, with no stipulations, so such things would still have to be described in the unit/weapon description. If the +1A is always applied, e.g. additional hand weapon, it could just as easily say +1A in the description rather than refer to a special rule. And if there are cases where the model doesn't always get the bonus, surely it still has to say "hobgoblins benefit from the extra attack special rule (refer to page xx of the WHFB Rulebook) unless they can't be bothered", which if anything is worse than "hobgoblins get +1 attack unless they can't be bothered"...


Anyway, I'm not trying to argue, just expressing why I don't understand, but until I've played a bit and/or future army books make some sense of it, I'll just trust the fact you guys who actually play the game can see why it might have it's uses and shut up :)

Maoriboy007
12-08-2010, 21:58
TLOS is a joke, I'm sure most of my group will be happy sticking with the 7th edition guidelines, it was simple and effective and I can't recall ever having a dispute about it, ...

Can't say it enough, why the things that worked perfectly fine and then wreck 'em for no good reason .


It's a perfect example of GW 'fixing' something which isn't remotely broken

Seems to be the case of about 50% of 8th edition


Probably the whole 'footprint' issue is rather annoying as 25 mm can benefit from it but not 20mm when it comes to mounted models.

Right next to TLOS as an unessesary change


Stop the whining and start enjoying the game. Its more fun that wat, really! ;)

Doesn't mean we shouldn't marvel at blatent stupidity/incompetance.

Not a rule as such, but I've already said that anything that says "removes a model/unit with no saves of any kind" was something that needed to be removed from 7th, not multiplied in 8th.

Not to mention they could get pretty selective when they wanted to, especially in the errattas.

Balerion
12-08-2010, 23:52
I find them characterful. Frenzied troops are far too enraged to care for their own safety, and flaming attacks can set buildings on fire which is represented by a rerollable to-wound roll.
I don't think that Frenzy means troops lose all of their martial training. If that's the case their weapon skill should be affected. The more blows a warrior can fend off, the more blows of his own he is able to deal.

I know the rule description has some catchwords like "mindless" and "lack of self-preservation" but I think it's dumb to take those things at absolute face value.

Marshal Torrick
13-08-2010, 00:08
Unnecessary rules? Undead being Unstable. The two army books that feature units with the Undead special rule already had explanations of how it works, not to mention that those explanations work perfectly well with 8th edition.

kramplarv
13-08-2010, 00:21
I don't like the TLOS more than anyone else.. But it's not a big deal.
What I belive is a big deal is that no terrain confer negative modifiers to movement. We could as well play without terrain...

And I totally totally totally is of the opinion that "everything touched = everything hit" with templates... That rule destroyed 40k, and It will probably make the 8th a worse game than it would have been otherwise. :(

Maoriboy007
13-08-2010, 00:24
Unnecessary rules? Undead being Unstable. The two army books that feature units with the Undead special rule already had explanations of how it works, not to mention that those explanations work perfectly well with 8th edition.

I have a feeling that they jumped at another chance to dick over undead.
Any explenation about cenralising the rules to the BRB book fall pretty flat when you consider HEs still strike first and re-roll with Great Weapons.

chivalrous
13-08-2010, 00:28
I'm going to agree with True Line of Sight as well, especially when combined with the floaty Elven Mage/Sorceress/Spellsinger models (I'm a Dark Elf player myself)

First of all, none of these models inherently have the float or fly special rules (without the aid of a mount), and Column of Whatsit from 4th/5th edition is no longer in anyone's spell deck.

Secondly, and more importantly, it gives anyone using these models an unfair advantage when targeting spells requiring LoS, or (if they're in a unit) the ability to charge over a hill when ordinarily they wouldn't be able to see the opposition.
Conversely, though, it does meant that these models are visible to more opponents, meaning that war machines can (as far as I'm aware) quite happily lob stones, mortars shells and spiky hat wearing Goblins over the top of otherwise LOS-blocking friendly units and enemy units on the other side of a hill can charge your naively placed-so-it's-safe unit of sorceress guarding, not-really-killy-unless-you're-a-frilly-poncy-High-Elf unit of might-as-well-be-paper soliders.

So the sword is double edged.

Same goes for custom based models on a higher than typical base: sure you can see more to charge at, but first I'mg going to launch all my arrows, these incredibly pointy bolts and, oh, look, my Sorceress with the Power scroll has an incredibly nasty spell to cast. *waves*


Oh, I can't say I'm fond of the units need two full ranks to negate a rank bonus when they charge a flank. I'm spending twice as much on [Fast] Cavalry now. I would have much preferred two ranks of infantry (excluding skirmishers) or one full rank of cavalry.

Chiron
13-08-2010, 00:34
Skirmishers on movement trays and TLOS for me.

Also the BIG UBER SPELLS OF DOOM!!!1 not allowing saves of any kind, even Magic Resistance ones (40 Swordsmen full of heroes vs Teclis, 3 turns of IF Lore of Metal die on a 5+ spell... fun)

Grimstonefire
13-08-2010, 00:36
Like extra handweapons...

I'm guessing the extra attack special rule is for things that do not have the option for an additional hand weapon, an example being a Spawn having D6 + Extra Attack, as opposed to D6+1. ;)

Maoriboy007
13-08-2010, 00:36
The skirmishing rules also seem to be another case of breaking something that they actually fixed in 8th.
Changing the redirecting rules pretty much fixed the reason skirmishing units were OP in 7th. All this formation junk and the loss of 360 line of sight doesn't quite mesh wiht the intent of skirmiskers IMO.
Steadfast in woods is a nice buff , though ,as long as the wood itself doesn't contain anything nasty.

Lord Inquisitor
13-08-2010, 00:41
TLOS is a joke, I'm sure most of my group will be happy sticking with the 7th edition guidelines, it was simple and effective and I can't recall ever having a dispute about it, now as enyoss likes to mount his eagle and griffon riding models on big rocks to give a centrepiece feel, he's going to be accused of cheating when it benefits him, and he'll feel it's unfair when it benefits his opponent.

It's a perfect example of GW 'fixing' something which isn't remotely broken
Funny, I recall possibly more arguments about 7th's LOS rules than just about anything else. Pretty much because most people played them contrary to the rulebook. Infinitely high hills? Never existed as a Warhammer rule. You used "model's eye view" just as in 8th.

I think the most unnecessary rulebook rules must go to the mysterious terrain.

the Goat
13-08-2010, 01:57
I have always hated the special Dwarf anti-magic rule in the main rule book (in every edition of the game). There is a special rule called "magic resistance" that is used to represent when models have an inherent resistance to magic. But instead of using that rule, Dwarves get a totally different rule to represent how they are inherently resistant to magic.

I agree the new all terrain is magical and has really dumb effects on the game rules are horrible.

But I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape about true line of sight. Seems like a very minor change to me. It does potentially reward people for making special model conversions though (extra tall or short, etc.). But that is a problem with the player not the rule.

Aluinn
13-08-2010, 02:18
Or to make ASF worth considering in a game where striking order has become less critical.





As to only being able to use a 'special weapon' I assume the reason is to avoid things like taking an characters with a standard weapon loadout to deal with one type of opponent and another to deal with Monsters, Characters or something else. Not that this automatically makes it worthwhile.

I think it could also have been done to avoid confusion over which armor save to use (and whether to use a Parry save or not) when a model is wielding a shield, hand weapon, and another special weapon of some kind. I've met new players who were a bit confused over the fact that the shield didn't work if they wanted to use their great weapons; after all, it is fairly intuitive that a warrior might be able to swing a two-handed weapon at the enemy, then shift to a one-handed grip and get their shield up when that enemy was striking back. The "I attack, you attack" process of Warhammer combat contributes to this, since it feels like significant "fluff time" may elapse between one side's attacks and another's, even though, as I understand it, that is not meant to be the case. Adding to that is the fact that a lot of magic weapons only require one hand to use, and yet for some reason do not grant a Parry save when combined with a shield.

I realize that the rules could be written unambiguously in such a way as to allow for a choice of weapons to use, but it is good games design in general to get rid of even potential sources of confusion.

Arnizipal
13-08-2010, 11:11
Unnecessary rules? Undead being Unstable. The two army books that feature units with the Undead special rule already had explanations of how it works, not to mention that those explanations work perfectly well with 8th edition.I guess they wanted to put the rule in the main rulebook to make easier to access for those who don't play undead and have to face them for the first time.
Or something...


I'm guessing the extra attack special rule is for things that do not have the option for an additional hand weapon, an example being a Spawn having D6 + Extra Attack, as opposed to D6+1. ;)
No that would be the Random Attacks (I forgot the extact name) special rule. Spawn are given as an example even.

WiganUltra
13-08-2010, 14:08
No that would be the Random Attacks (I forgot the extact name) special rule. Spawn are given as an example even.

Hadn't noticed a random attacks special rule, but I can't see the point in that either. D3 or D6 in the profile would cover that.

Surely the point of special rules is for things that are exceptions or additions to the main rules?

By the extra attack example, why don't we also have extra strength, extra toughness etc special rules??

Lord Inquisitor
13-08-2010, 18:02
Perhaps not a rulebook rule, but perhaps my vote for "most unnecessary change" goes to the Steam Tank. I have no clue whatsoever what was wrong with the existing rule (particularly since GW typically bend over backwards to avoid errata-ing any unit they don't need to).

It went from a reasonably tough but balanced unit to one that's virtually impossible to kill with mundane weapons but can be auto-killed by any spell like Purple Sun that runs off initiative tests...

Urgat
13-08-2010, 18:35
Oh, I'm going to add the "autopoof" for running away standards.
I'm also going to add my support for the cruelly misunderstood terrain rules (but am going to add that I'm going to houserule them, sorta like old animosity, when you enter the terrain you roll a dice, and on a 1 you roll on the table).


Perhaps not a rulebook rule, but perhaps my vote for "most unnecessary change" goes to the Steam Tank. I have no clue whatsoever what was wrong with the existing rule (particularly since GW typically bend over backwards to avoid errata-ing any unit they don't need to).

It went from a reasonably tough but balanced unit to one that's virtually impossible to kill with mundane weapons but can be auto-killed by any spell like Purple Sun that runs off initiative tests...

"looks at model"
"looks at fluff"
"scratches head"
"thinks a good while -ouch, it hurts!"

Mmh, doesn't it make sense that this thing is impervious to little dudes poking at it with small sticks, but can be blasted away by spheres of whirling arcane energies? Seems sound to me. I really don't mind.

Vandelan
13-08-2010, 19:23
Does the 8thed book also have the 'Most Important Rule of All'?

It's not the same rule. It's now one that has you roll off with your opponent so you don't end up squabbling and/or slowing down the game when faced with a rules question that you don't know the answer to.

Gazak Blacktoof
13-08-2010, 20:01
This one, it's really the only one that I look at and wonder "why the heck did they need to add that?".

It forces units to behave sensibly. I despised the idea that warriors with spears or great weapons would drop them in favour of using butter knives and shields.


What I don't like is the removal of the roll for partial hits, it makes tamplates way too effective. If they wanted to remove the "discussions" players had regarding partial and full hits they should have applied a 3+ to hit roll for all models touched by the template. Auto-hitting templates are crazy.

Urgat
13-08-2010, 20:14
It forces units to behave sensibly. I despised the idea that warriors with spears or great weapons would drop them in favour of using butter knives and shields.

Why? If it makes sense? There's real life exemples of soldiers having normal weapons, two-handed weapons and shields, if they were carrying all that, it's because they used it all I assume.

Lord Inquisitor
13-08-2010, 21:10
"looks at model"
"looks at fluff"
"scratches head"
"thinks a good while -ouch, it hurts!"

Mmh, doesn't it make sense that this thing is impervious to little dudes poking at it with small sticks, but can be blasted away by spheres of whirling arcane energies? Seems sound to me. I really don't mind.
Heh, it does make some sense although replace little dudes with sticks with ravening greater daemons and giants. But from a game balance perspective it was bizarre and it still strikes me as a most unnecessary change.

Urgat
13-08-2010, 21:27
Ok, I replace the little men with their knives with a giant (I don't know the greater demons and their toys well enough). I don't like the giant, but I honestly don't think that a stank can kill it in melee in one turn. So, the giant got lucky and didn't get shot to death or stuck in a unit of flagellants. If for now we ignore the random attacks, and assume the stupid idiot doesn't yell and bawl, he's got D6 S7 attacks on the tank at the end of the fight. With just that, it's got a chance to deal a wound, no? I'm no good at maths, but it should be something like that. I hear a couple wounds are crippling to a stank, so it's already that.
Now, thump with club. That's the highest probability one. 2D6 WOUNDS w/o saves. Period. So at least two garanteed wounds (I'm not considering all the possible 10 or better instakill results for fairness sake :) How many of those are there? double 5, double 6, 5 and 6, 6 and 5, her... 6 and 4, 4 and 6. 6 chances out of 36 to kill the stank right away. Not too bad). Usually thump ain't so hot because of the I test, but oh! The Stank autofails those :D Or headbutt, one sure wound. I can see the giant consistently winning against the Stank, so it's still fine in my book :)

Lord Inquisitor
13-08-2010, 21:40
Okay, fine, giants are a bad example because they have their own silly rules that circumvent the core rules (I did have to pull an example that didn't work, didn't I?). I don't like the giant rules either (or anything that avoids WS or inflicts automatic wounds). Because it makes sense that the only thing that can take out a Steam Tank is a giant headbutting it :rolleyes:;)

Cragspyder
13-08-2010, 21:47
Well, I could have done without the terrain rules as they are now. Randomly roll for 5-10 terrain pieces (and some of these rolls can actually be several terrain pieces), and hills and forests (the two most often used terrain pieces by far) are just as common as massive villages and magical swamps.

So, battlefields are crowded as hell, littered in special rules that are never remembered. I can't tell you how many times I have moved into another phase in a single game, then remembered the 'Wildwood kills my models' roll or the random magical effect from a Sorcerous Portal. I don't know about you, but most terrain pieces I have see are NOT designed to have a 40 model block sitting in them, or indeed any unit that wasn't a Skirmisher or War Machine, but now we find that this happens more and more often. Not to mention that buildings are far more common, yet they cannot be occupied by any unit over 20 models, when most ranked units have at least 25 models nowadays if not more.

You folks might have seen OnceBitten's Brettonian battle reports on Youtube. The 8th edition ones, I think with perhaps ONE exception, all have a central terrain piece that makes everyone within 6 inches or so Stubborn.

Not only is it forgotten half the time, but it actually prevents him from charging into combat in some occasions (notably in the OK vs Bret report) because he knows that he can't kill the Ogres fast enough and they won't break. So these terrain rules not only are confusing and clutter the board, but they actually prevent dynamic action.

I think D3+3 terrain pieces, not d6+4, would have been a much better idea, with a much lower chance of getting a village, much higher chances of getting rivers (I admit I play Lizardmen so this would be one reason I want to see more rivers!), hills and forests, and these hills, forests and rivers should only be special on a roll of a 6.

Commodus Leitdorf
13-08-2010, 22:01
Because it makes sense that the only thing that can take out a Steam Tank is a giant headbutting it :rolleyes:;)

Just the imagery of this is causing me to laugh....Darn it! I'm at work! People are staring!

Avian
13-08-2010, 22:54
And I totally totally totally is of the opinion that "everything touched = everything hit" with templates... That rule destroyed 40k, and It will probably make the 8th a worse game than it would have been otherwise. :(
Yeah, that one seemed rather daft, especially since the thinking seems to have gone:
"Let's make all template hits auto-hits, removing any 4+ rolls."
"Ooops, that made template weapons too powerful, let's tone down the Strength of stone throwers and take away their ignore armour rule. Oh, and make breath weapons one use only."

Surely it would have been easier to keep template weapons as they were, no?

Maoriboy007
13-08-2010, 22:57
I guess they wanted to put the rule in the main rulebook to make easier to access for those who don't play undead and have to face them for the first time.
Or something...

So why do elves get to strike first and re-roll with great weapons then?
No its simply a case of someone bitched and moaned about it and someone at GW took notice...it was just unessesary, the undead rule was fine as it was.

Lord Inquisitor
13-08-2010, 23:00
I don't mind the template rules. It makes them more dangerous and quicker to resolve. It was a great thing in 40K (how did that "ruin" 40K? :eyebrows:) and while in Fantasy it has bigger rammifications (as everything is more bunched up), it is still reasonable - it's just going to need a repointing of such weapons.

WiganUltra
14-08-2010, 01:44
Because it makes sense that the only thing that can take out a Steam Tank is a giant headbutting it :rolleyes:;)


Just the imagery of this is causing me to laugh....Darn it! I'm at work! People are staring!


LMAO true! Whatever people are saying about 8th in various threads, if a headbutt from a giant is the best way to kill a steamtank, then all other issues are moot!

In fact, I'm now imagining a demotivational poster with something like "Giant headbutt kills steamtank. This renders your arguement invalid" :)

UberBeast
14-08-2010, 02:08
I don't mind the template rules. It makes them more dangerous and quicker to resolve. It was a great thing in 40K (how did that "ruin" 40K? :eyebrows:) and while in Fantasy it has bigger rammifications (as everything is more bunched up), it is still reasonable - it's just going to need a repointing of such weapons.

You haven't played against the multiple hellcannon WoT list with their standard that reduces the leadership of any unit that can see it yet have you? I've had whole armies running off the table before I took my first turn thanks to this little combo.

Hellcannon causes panic test at -1 while standard drops leadership again. I've also been hit with the "doom and darkness" spell from lore of death to boost this up to a -5 leadership test.

I've also seen the orc rocklobba of doom list with a dozen cheap rocklobbas bombing the crap out of everything in sight, or the empire mortar battery...

Absolutely brutal.

Arnizipal
14-08-2010, 03:39
Hadn't noticed a random attacks special rule, but I can't see the point in that either. D3 or D6 in the profile would cover that.

Surely the point of special rules is for things that are exceptions or additions to the main rules?

By the extra attack example, why don't we also have extra strength, extra toughness etc special rules??
The Random Attacks special rules is described on page 74.
The rules for the additioanl hand weapon on page 91 state that it has the Extra Attack special rule, so it's used for pretty mundane stuff as well.

Ragnoff
14-08-2010, 03:49
This thread should have been named, "Bitch about rules I don't like in the new rulebook" as it seems that only ONE of the posters made an argument about a rule being unnecessary! Even that one was countered showing why it woudl be there in a complete rule set.

An unnecessary rule would be something like Cavalry mounts cannot make bow attacks, it is unnecessary as no cavalry MOUNTS have the option of TAKING bows! (Also aren't all of them BS 0 to boot?)

Any way the OP can change the title of this thread to something more appropriate?

Souppilgrim
14-08-2010, 07:01
I don't mind autopoofing standards. When you are running for your life there are two options for the standard guy...

1. He is the bravest guy ever, and will not leave his flag, thus dies.

2. He drops the now useless sheet on a pole and high tails it out of there.

And option one is just easier to replicate in game terms. Not to mention BSB's are already hard to break, they need a weakness.

Urgat
14-08-2010, 09:36
Why can't he chose option 3 and run with the standard, having a buddy help carry it if it's really heavy?

Souppilgrim
15-08-2010, 10:07
Why can't he chose option 3 and run with the standard, having a buddy help carry it if it's really heavy?

Because people are trying to stab him to death and they are inches away. I don't know if you have ever been stabbed to death before, but it really hurts. I doubt you would worry about organizing a two team wood and cloth transport team.

Von Wibble
15-08-2010, 12:33
I don't mind autopoofing standards. When you are running for your life there are two options for the standard guy...

1. He is the bravest guy ever, and will not leave his flag, thus dies.

2. He drops the now useless sheet on a pole and high tails it out of there.

And option one is just easier to replicate in game terms. Not to mention BSB's are already hard to break, they need a weakness.

The fact that if they do their job and carry a magic standard they are too easy to kill, so every BSB now has to have a big armour save and ideally a ward too isn't enough of a weakness? You can pretty much rule out my high elf BSB ever taking the battle banner for example.

Option 2 seems to make more sense...

I have no problem with rules like devastating charge and sea creature as they make room for new units in army books. For example, imo devastating charge is actually an ideal rule for units like dragon princes (with only 1 attack on base profile) and boar boyz, and would make a nice replacement for impact hits on ogres as its rules can just be written into their descriptions.

My choices of unnecessary/poor rules

1) No half VPs.

2) Parry rules. Apparently the cygor now forces rerolls of parry because his supernatural abilities designed to penetrate magical wards and deamonic saves just happen to also make him better at stopping shields. They shuldn't have made it a ward - better would have been to say that the armour save can never be modified to worse than 6+. This also wuold be a nerf to hand weapon and shield, which is imo very necessary as clanrats, skeletons and goblins still never use spears in preference of hw + shield.

3) Skirmishers losing their 360 degree charge.

4) Cannons hit riders and monsters together. Because the cannon wasn't already undercosted for what it did...

5) Terrain doesn't restrict movement. Whilst I think the previous edition was too harsh I do think something needs to be put in to actually give combat skirmishers and single characters some kind of advantage. Charges through terrain only roll D6 + movement for example.

Gatsby
15-08-2010, 12:53
Because people are trying to stab him to death and they are inches away. I don't know if you have ever been stabbed to death before, but it really hurts. I doubt you would worry about organizing a two team wood and cloth transport team.

...sounds like fun to me but if so one else wants to that's fine I can just go kick around that decapitated head over there...

kramplarv
15-08-2010, 13:24
I don't mind the template rules. It makes them more dangerous and quicker to resolve. It was a great thing in 40K (how did that "ruin" 40K? :eyebrows:) a.

When you've played against the IG-player with 4 battlecannons, 6 mortars, 6 rocket launchers, a few plasma cannons and occasional earthsahkers I believe you will see it from my view :)

There's nothing in "autohit with 5" template" that makes anything "great". :) In fantasy 2 helstorms, 3 mortars will quickly defeat many many armies. In a very boring way.

Or skaven armies with a lot of template weapons. In addition, I totally expect next army books with war machines to be filled with template-weapons. And those will be stronger than what we se today because todays war machines are quite obsolete. so to speak. :)

@the discussion between weapons:
Yes, soldiers goes into battle with many weapons. But they have one "main weapon" which they use almost all the time. Because their role on the battlefield is made up becasue of their armament. So a soldier with spears would use spears until either their role on the battlefield is changed by the commander, or their weapon is destroyed. :)

Gazak Blacktoof
15-08-2010, 13:25
This also wuold be a nerf to hand weapon and shield, which is imo very necessary as clanrats, skeletons and goblins still never use spears in preference of hw + shield.

Really?

One thing we're all in agreement upon in our group is that hand weapon and shield is now a fairly rubbish option. I'd much rather have a spear, halberd or great weapon. The only units where I think hand weapon and shield is a valid option are orcs (choppa rules) and tzeentch models (5+ ward).

A 6+ ward doesn't seem to do much against the number of attacks that units put out in this edition. It also doesn't work against any special attacks, making its use limited.

UberBeast
15-08-2010, 17:35
Really?

One thing we're all in agreement upon in our group is that hand weapon and shield is now a fairly rubbish option. I'd much rather have a spear, halberd or great weapon. The only units where I think hand weapon and shield is a valid option are orcs (choppa rules) and tzeentch models (5+ ward).

A 6+ ward doesn't seem to do much against the number of attacks that units put out in this edition. It also doesn't work against any special attacks, making its use limited.

I think the HW and shield is still a viable option for WoC. Getting that 6+ ward save in CC is nice when you're saving tough, expensive models.

BorderKing
15-08-2010, 17:44
The nerf to skirmishers and the nerf to cavalry. I think that initative order really screws with mounted stuff and they should count as ASF if they charge I also hate the changes to skirmishers. I used to like how they where as they felt like a band of merry men. Now they feel too uniform and have lost their charm.

TheMav80
15-08-2010, 18:27
I think I am going to start keeping a tally of everytime someone comments on the new terrains rules, not having noticed that the special terrain use is totally optional.

Pacorko
15-08-2010, 18:37
An abstract system is not only more "elegant" but it also has a much broader scope. Plus you didn't get people bitching about your cool rock bases.

Of course, by that you mean more "gamey" or "easier to abuse".

I really see no unnecessary rules in the new book. People really need to enjoy what has become a way better game that add a bit or realism and far more dramatic moments to all that's happening on the table instead of whining "how all cav got nerfed because now I need at least one extra rank to make one effective attack, mow down the targetted unit, then move on to mow down the next enemy unit".

Really guys... these rules are niftier and not all that monstrously prone to interpretation by gamey-gamers.

Oglog
15-08-2010, 18:38
My general feeling about the warhammer game is that 8th should have been the time to simplify the game in places, not to add a load more rules on.

I agree and Alessio Cavatore did a great job of simplifying 40k from 4th to 5th and didn't change or add on too much, which was a success. Haven't games workshop realised that Mat Ward, despite his occasion moments of genius, generally writes a load of rubbish.

Pacorko
16-08-2010, 04:03
Or why don't people read the damned book already and stop perpetuating the musty, old tirade about how Matt Ward is so bad at making rules?

Daemons "sucked", we get it. Now pay closer attention to the actual 8th edition rules and play a few games, why don'tcha?

:rollseyes:

Gazak Blacktoof
16-08-2010, 09:17
I agree and Alessio Cavatore did a great job of simplifying 40k from 4th to 5th and didn't change or add on too much, which was a success. Haven't games workshop realised that Mat Ward, despite his occasion moments of genius, generally writes a load of rubbish.

IIRC Alessio was responsible for some horrendously cheesey work during 6th edition.

I think Matt Ward got a lot right with the new book. Movement and magic dice generation in particular are great improvements on the 6th/7th edition versions. I also like many of the scenarios and the new terrain rules, though the terrain generation table can lead to a very rules cluttered table.

Lord Inquisitor
17-08-2010, 07:47
This thread should have been named, "Bitch about rules I don't like in the new rulebook" as it seems that only ONE of the posters made an argument about a rule being unnecessary! Even that one was countered showing why it woudl be there in a complete rule set.

How about this one then? The rulebook lays out how scatter works at the start of the book, then explains it again for stone throwers.

Maoriboy007
17-08-2010, 09:25
This thread should have been named, "Bitch about rules I don't like in the new rulebook".

Since one group of people bitched and moaned throughout 7th, they surely can't begrudge the other side having a turn.


as it seems that only ONE of the posters made an argument about a rule being unnecessary! Even that one was countered showing why it woudl be there in a complete rule set.

But that was again countered showing that the explanation seems, at the very least inconsistant. :shifty:


Of course, by that you mean more "gamey" or "easier to abuse".

8th doesn't seem any more or less eay to abuse than 7th really, just in different ways.


I really see no unnecessary rules in the new book.

Either you are just plain better off with the new rules in comparison or you just aren't looking very hard.:shifty:


People really need to enjoy what has become a way better game...

I dont see a transition from the uber smashy combat unit meta game to a uber smashy gunline/magic bomb meta game as a vast improvement.
I'll give you that in some ways its a better game, they improved some things that did indeed needed fixing, very few of us deny that.
Its those unessesary flaws that keep it from being the awesome improvement that we hoped it would be, which is what has some of us going :wtf: and "why?"


...that add a bit or realism and far more dramatic moments to all that's happening on the table

Watching entire units obliterated by a single spell or stonethrower is indeed dramatic.
And if I wanted realism I would be playing some historical wargame, give me fire breathing dragons and gibbering undead hordes, thats why I play this game.


instead of whining "how all cav got nerfed because now I need at least one extra rank to make one effective attack, mow down the targetted unit, then move on to mow down the next enemy unit".

Not really the essence of any argument that I've seen so far :eyebrows: a gross simplification if anything. In fact may of us championed many of the changes that fixed the particular meta game you seem to be referring to.
Cavalry should be able to have a decent impact however, they cant quite seem to get a balance.


Really guys... these rules are niftier...

Well, simpler in some cases, and even some of the new ones (random charges, pre-measuring" have grown on me I guess, some are still plain stupid (TLOS)


and not all that monstrously prone to interpretation by gamey-gamers.

Sadly I don't think this will ever change in any edition:cries:


Or why don't people read the damned book already and stop perpetuating the musty, old tirade about how Matt Ward is so bad at making rules?

But its such a cheap source of entertainment ;)



Daemons "sucked", we get it. Now pay closer attention to the actual 8th edition rules and play a few games, why don'tcha

Doing that, and its in playing that we can find these flaws and better bring them to light.

Lord-Caerolion
17-08-2010, 15:19
Gotta go with the fact that both an Additional Hand Weapon and Frenzy grant the Extra Attack rule, which to my reading means that Witch Elves may as well drop one knife, because it won't do anything for them until they lose their Frenzy.

Now, not actually using Witch Elves myself, I haven't looked too carefully at this, and would love to be proved wrong, but really, I think that Extra Attack is a redundant rule, as it's already summed up very, very quickly in a simple +1 A, instead of Extra Attack.

chivalrous
17-08-2010, 16:00
Gotta go with the fact that both an Additional Hand Weapon and Frenzy grant the Extra Attack rule, which to my reading means that Witch Elves may as well drop one knife, because it won't do anything for them until they lose their Frenzy.

Now, not actually using Witch Elves myself, I haven't looked too carefully at this, and would love to be proved wrong, but really, I think that Extra Attack is a redundant rule, as it's already summed up very, very quickly in a simple +1 A, instead of Extra Attack.

I'm pretty sure the rulebook FAQ cleared that one up ;)

Lord-Caerolion
17-08-2010, 16:03
Hmm... That'll teach me to not check the FAQ for my army book, but not the rulebook...

WiganUltra
17-08-2010, 22:32
Gotta go with the fact that both an Additional Hand Weapon and Frenzy grant the Extra Attack rule, which to my reading means that Witch Elves may as well drop one knife, because it won't do anything for them until they lose their Frenzy.

Now, not actually using Witch Elves myself, I haven't looked too carefully at this, and would love to be proved wrong, but really, I think that Extra Attack is a redundant rule, as it's already summed up very, very quickly in a simple +1 A, instead of Extra Attack.

This is exactly my issue with the rule. There seems to be nothing whatsoever achieved by directing players to the special rule page compared to simply putting +1A wherever it is used.

And in this case, it's actually caused a problem that has had to be FAQ'd.

This and Random Attacks are just stupid.

Maoriboy007
17-08-2010, 22:53
So why doesn't hatred force persuit?

*DE delivers vicious flurry of blows, frothing at the mouth*
"rarrrrgh take that scum! You are filth that must be destroyed in the name of the Druchii!"
*overcome his opponant flees*
*DE sits on his can*
"yeah you better run.....and don't come back...I'll just wait here shall I...?"
*wipes froth from mouth*

Malorian
17-08-2010, 22:54
So why doesn't hatred force persuit?

Because it would introduce something that GW feared would be seen as tactics...

Arnizipal
18-08-2010, 12:21
This is exactly my issue with the rule. There seems to be nothing whatsoever achieved by directing players to the special rule page compared to simply putting +1A wherever it is used.

And in this case, it's actually caused a problem that has had to be FAQ'd.

This and Random Attacks are just stupid.
It was my understanding that special rules tack. The Extra Attack of the additional handweapon and the Extra Attack from Frenzy get you two Extra Attacks as a result.
The second paragraph of page 66 of the rulebook seems to agree with me.

Pacorko
19-08-2010, 06:18
It was my understanding that special rules tack. The Extra Attack of the additional handweapon and the Extra Attack from Frenzy get you two Extra Attacks as a result.
The second paragraph of page 66 of the rulebook seems to agree with me.

Yes, it does.

Now, Maoriboy, you gave good response, I will take the time to add to the debate tomorrow, as it is only proper.

One thing I must stress before I hit the sack: Magic and artillery are lethal yes, but not "uber smashy"... at least if you are playing with beefer units and bigger games. Which, sadly for many here, is the whole point of the game and a big reason why they are more than a tad resentful.

Alas! I remember a time when people whined that WHFB wasn't a battle but a skirmish, and the armies were but warbands... oh, and how magic was useless because it was so easy to get those scroll caddies to neuter any wizard getting a good roll... or how warmachines were prone to abuse and gameyness or how there were a waste of points... or... [see Warseer's (in)famous and quite long "backlog of bitchin'"...

Well, these days I've read a lot of people whining about the "most unnecessary rule of them all": the Horde rule. Then, not I read about how magic has become "the dominant force of the battlefield" and how artillery "makes or breaks the game".

This is when I have to go :wtf:

You guys got your wishes! All of them! In one fell swoop!

And you still hate it or find it so flawed?

I recommend you read Jervis article starting here (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=&section=&pIndex=0&aId=12400019a&start=1) and take note of the introduction.

P.S.: That's how I approach every single new edition of everything, for fairness' sake.

WiganUltra
20-08-2010, 02:36
It was my understanding that special rules tack. The Extra Attack of the additional handweapon and the Extra Attack from Frenzy get you two Extra Attacks as a result.
The second paragraph of page 66 of the rulebook seems to agree with me.

Well fair enough if that's how it works, although it still needed clarifying. Plus, that I know of, there's no reason why "additional handweapon = +1A" and "frenzy = +1A" wouldn't also stack, so I'm still yet to find a reason for the rule to exist in the first place.


If we're including rules that are annoying/stupid as well as just those that are a waste of page space, then I'm also somewhat annoyed and confused as to why magic resistance got combined with ward saves, when all the top damage spells (purple sun, pit of shades etc) allow no saves of any kind. Seems a bit pointless being resistant to magic if it offers zero protection.

Though TBH, this mainly annoys me because I'm doing Khorne Daemons and expect to suffer against my mate's High Elves! :(