PDA

View Full Version : 8th Edition - What one rule do you like LEAST?



Eternus
29-09-2010, 10:50
Ok people, I am calling on 8th Edition players to have a good old think about this before they decide what they will vote for.

I am doing this as a follow up to a thread I created a couple of months ago to allow people to suggest things they liked and disliked about the 8th Edition Rules, but when it comes down to it, if you are forced to choose the one thing that you dislike the most, what is it? What one thing has has the most negative effect on the game in your eyes?

I ran a similar poll for 40K 5th Edition when that came out and I think the results were quite surprising, because after all the moans about TLOS and hitting rear armour on vehicles in combat and not being allowed to consolidate into a fresh combat wrecking every CC army in the game, it was 'Killing models that are out of sight' that came top with 37%.

There were other suggestions as well, but there's a limit on the poll options, so I've gone for the 10 I think will be most unpopular - some options and kind of 'umberella' options because they cover numerous issues, like Magic and Steadfast, so I consolidated these into a single potion where possible.

So here goes.

Ney
29-09-2010, 10:54
Erm, there is no poll?

Anyway my suggestion: "That you cannot disrupt steadfast."

Eternus
29-09-2010, 10:56
Erm, there is no poll?

Anyway my suggestion: "That you cannot disrupt steadfast."

There is now.

Ney
29-09-2010, 11:02
There is now.

I was just too fast then :D

I voted "can't choose weapons" as that is quite stupid as well.

I didn't vote steadfast cos I really like the idea that you dont run away as easily when you are in a head to head fight with an opponent you outnumber. It feels right! But it doesnt feel right, that you should have the same benefit when attacked from an unsuspected angle by a medium to large force.

Eternus
29-09-2010, 11:06
I was just too fast then :D

I voted "can't choose weapons" as that is quite stupid as well.

I didn't vote steadfast cos I really like the idea that you dont run away as easily when you are in a head to head fight with an opponent you outnumber. It feels right! But it doesnt feel right, that you should have the same benefit when attacked from an unsuspected angle by a medium to large force.

Lots of changes have pros and cons, and Steadfast is one that for me has more pros than cons - it really gives infantry a big boost, so now core infantry are a real contender rather than a burden.

I went for changes to Panic, because it just seems daft to me that a unit of 30 elite soldiers might panic because 1 chicken runs past them.

Chris_
29-09-2010, 11:22
Think this should be in "General Discussion" instead...

Eternus
29-09-2010, 11:24
Think this should be in "General Discussion" instead...

I thought it would be better here as it's a Rules discussion, but any of the Mods are welcome to move it if they think it best.

Toshiro
29-09-2010, 11:34
I voted the panic, for the same reason as eternus

narrativium
29-09-2010, 11:35
I've opted for 'can't choose weapons', from the options, though I'm not sure how bad it really is, as I haven't used any units yet who would've had the choice.

Steadfast can be a little annoying around the thresholds (where a 25-strong unit can be whittled down to 5 by a suitably kitted out monster and the unit can still be stubborn) but its benefits outweigh that. Panic - yeah, a single chicken can panic another unit, but the threshold used to be just as peculiar: before, you could bring a 25-strong unit down to 4 models, have it break, and it wouldn't cause panic in anyone. And now BSBs boost resilience to panic, as they should.

Thundergod
29-09-2010, 14:20
can't choose weapons is annoying, but i didn't see my (least) favorite on the list. Useless magic resistance. Maybe that falls under the magic heading, but for the most part i like the new magic.

theorox
29-09-2010, 14:36
I voted "Can't choose weapons" as well...kinda silly but i can live with it. :)

Theo

kaulem
29-09-2010, 14:41
The skirmish rules... not all armies rely on them, so it probably wont win the poll.

The rules just seem overly complicated compared to previous editions. They are like fast cavalry, on foot, without vanguard, but with a special formation (ever try to to move skirmish units without a movement tray and keep said formation?)

Now I,ve got to make special movement trays for skirmishers... in every possible rank/column combination wtf?!?!?

a18no
29-09-2010, 14:51
I don't really like the skirmish rule. not enough "skirmish" for me.

And can't choose weapons.

After that, I think that I like all the rules.

kaulem
29-09-2010, 14:52
also,

the "can't disrupt steadfast" is pretty bad...

and, why did they remove Unit Strengh?

Tregar
29-09-2010, 15:14
Cannons hitting all parts of a model.

Kloud13
29-09-2010, 15:19
I voted for the Terrain rules, but I was thinkin about how they don't block LoS. so really, I mean the TLoS rules is where I should have voted.

eyescrossed
29-09-2010, 15:23
Those poor, poor Stegadons. It's like playing live action pinball with a cannon.

Lord Inquisitor
29-09-2010, 15:36
My three bugbears are random charges (too random), lack of disruption to steadfast (and steadfast in general, it's a lousy mechanic to begin with) and the terrain rules. After some deliberating I voted for the terrain. Yes, terrain from earlier editions needed a shakeup but terrain now has far too little impact on a game and how units manoeuver. The terrain relies on Wackyhammer effects to discourage you from just wandering right through it, which require bookkeeping and can be frankly excessively impacting on the game (I once lost just about 50% in model count of my 3000-point army to terrain effects!)

eyescrossed
29-09-2010, 16:05
I respectfully disagree, Lord Inquisitor. Steadfast makes cheap infantry (well, all infantry actually) viable. The only thing I'd change about it would be Flank Charges negating it.

Random charges also stops shufflehammer and incessant arguing (along with 24/7 premeasuring).

Eternus
29-09-2010, 16:13
I respectfully disagree, Lord Inquisitor. Steadfast makes cheap infantry (well, all infantry actually) viable.

I agree. Because they introduced percentages for list selection, forcing most armies to take units of Core infantry, they needed to do something to allow them to be the mainstay of the battle line that they should be. I'm not sure if they went a little too far. There isn't much that's going to make a large unit of Steadfast infantry break in a hurry.

I'd still rather have the Steadfast rule than not have it.

Lord Inquisitor
29-09-2010, 16:15
I don't object to the principles of uncertainty in charging and steadfast. The execution of these rules are what is lacking. Uncertainty in charges was needed to prevent Shufflehammer as you say, but now the dice roll is more important than variation in the stat itself. Uncertainty isn't bad but too much randomness is. Steadfast is just sloppy. It has a lot of fallout. Something like adding your ranks to your Ld would work a lot better as it isn't binomial (right now you're either steadfast or screwed), it is proportional to the number of troops not relative to the enemy (so three ranks of five is less steadfast than five ranks of five). It would also reward players from trying to maximise combat resolution against steadfast enemies. I'm not saying these rules should be thrown out the window (just as I don't think we should play without terrain!) but these are definitely the least well executed rules of 8th (the magic phase also has some poorly-conceived mechanics, particularly the IF/miscast mechanism).

eyescrossed
29-09-2010, 16:23
I agree. Because they introduced percentages for list selection, forcing most armies to take units of Core infantry, they needed to do something to allow them to be the mainstay of the battle line that they should be. I'm not sure if they went a little too far. There isn't much that's going to make a large unit of Steadfast infantry break in a hurry.

I'd still rather have the Steadfast rule than not have it.
My thoughts, too. I've said it a billion times, but if Flanking negated it then it'd be a lot more balanced.



I don't object to the principles of uncertainty in charging and steadfast. The execution of these rules are what is lacking. Uncertainty in charges was needed to prevent Shufflehammer as you say, but now the dice roll is more important than variation in the stat itself. Uncertainty isn't bad but too much randomness is. Steadfast is just sloppy. It has a lot of fallout. Something like adding your ranks to your Ld would work a lot better as it isn't binomial (right now you're either steadfast or screwed), it is proportional to the number of troops not relative to the enemy (so three ranks of five is less steadfast than five ranks of five). It would also reward players from trying to maximise combat resolution against steadfast enemies. I'm not saying these rules should be thrown out the window (just as I don't think we should play without terrain!) but these are definitely the least well executed rules of 8th (the magic phase also has some poorly-conceived mechanics, particularly the IF/miscast mechanism).
Ahh, okay. Fair enough. I actually agree with most of what you're saying.

Culsandar
29-09-2010, 16:25
I too voted for the "cannot switch weapons," but only because my personal least favorite is not listed.

I hate the way MR works now. It is by far my least favorite change.

My opinion might be leaning since Dwarfs are my primary.

Eternus
29-09-2010, 16:27
I don't object to the principles of uncertainty in charging and steadfast. The execution of these rules are what is lacking. Uncertainty in charges was needed to prevent Shufflehammer as you say, but now the dice roll is more important than variation in the stat itself. Uncertainty isn't bad but too much randomness is. Steadfast is just sloppy. It has a lot of fallout. Something like adding your ranks to your Ld would work a lot better as it isn't binomial (right now you're either steadfast or screwed), it is proportional to the number of troops not relative to the enemy (so three ranks of five is less steadfast than five ranks of five). It would also reward players from trying to maximise combat resolution against steadfast enemies. I'm not saying these rules should be thrown out the window (just as I don't think we should play without terrain!) but these are definitely the least well executed rules of 8th (the magic phase also has some poorly-conceived mechanics, particularly the IF/miscast mechanism).

Random Charges is a red herring really, because it only comes into play at extreme range. Steadfast kinda works, though it shouldn't be so all or nothing, and places too much emphasis on having large units.

I mean, you'd have to go out and buy a shed load of extra models just to make your units......big.......enough. Ah, I get it now........

theorox
29-09-2010, 16:32
I mean, you'd have to go out and buy a shed load of extra models just to make your units......big.......enough. Ah, I get it now........

Lol, as we all have since before the book was released! ;)

Theo

Lord Inquisitor
29-09-2010, 16:33
People say that but has this really happened? I just conglomerated my multiple small units into few, larger units. I bought maybe 4 models to make my primary army 8th-ed ready.

Eternus
29-09-2010, 16:42
People say that but has this really happened? I just conglomerated my multiple small units into few, larger units. I bought maybe 4 models to make my primary army 8th-ed ready.

I always had big units anyway - even Brets I have 3 x 25 Men at Arms. Like you said, just combine units.

Little Joe
29-09-2010, 17:54
People say that but has this really happened? I just conglomerated my multiple small units into few, larger units. I bought maybe 4 models to make my primary army 8th-ed ready.

Yep, I upgraded and will go on with the other armies. But is is not just the hordes, others need to get bigger to cope with hordes. But I like the looks so don't mind.

night goblin spear 2x 35 -> 70 done
night goblin archers 20 -> 40 done
wolfriders and spiders now only go in 10
Trolls went up to 6 for one unit

Zombies 2x 50 planned(need assembly)
Skeleton 2x 20 -> 2x 30
Ghouls 2x 20 -> 2x 25

Dwarfs: all CC units will go in min. 25 probably, previously 20. Will redo the army on the whole and may even do a slayer horde. Shooters double again from 10 to 20. This gives me about 30% more dwarfs... So much for a dying people.

Voted for TLOS since I like to model/convert and now need to think about how much of him can be seen.:eyebrows:

Confessor_Atol
29-09-2010, 18:00
Overall, I really like the stead fast mechanic, although it should be easier to disrupt. The emphasis on infantry really makes the game look like armies fighting and not two groups of cavalry units hitting each other then bouncing off.

The new terrain rules are alright. In the previous edition forests were no-go zones but I'd be happier if they blocked some line of sight.

As stated before, the random charges put a much needed end to clip/shuffle- hammer. Monsters and chariots only contacting one line troop on the tip of a unit was pure stupidity. It was at its worst early 6th ed.

The skirmishing rules needed to be changed, but I feel like the devs took a ham fisted approach to it.

So maybe the skirmish rules.

sulla
29-09-2010, 20:26
I voted panic because of the number of chain panic tests I have taken in this edition. But my biggest hates in 7th edition are;

1)War machine shooting rules. Too accurate and they don't use the BS of the crew. Plus, the discrepancy between the accuracy of cannons and bolt throwers.
2) Magic items or skills that cause/prevent IF and or miscasts. The magic system is a solid risk/reward system now and these items let you break that too easily.
3) Attack allocation. I'd prefer a system where characters couldn't have attacks allocated against them unless they were in a challenge or it couldn't be avoided (character on his own/only model in BTB or similar circumstance). It would make softer combat characters more viable.

Those are my only real beefs with the system. I rate them more annoying than all the listed ones, even the one I voted for.

Enigmatik1
29-09-2010, 20:33
For me, it's got to be Pre-Measuring. I am a good estimator of distance. That part of the game was fun for me...estimating distance while trying to predict scatter. It should be even better without it, but I have yet to hit a unit with an SSC since 8E, whereas in I rarely missed them in 7E.

Most of the list doesn't really even apply to my army. Steadfast is annoying for me in that I have a hard time dealing with it...but that's whatever. I got over that a long time ago. Just avoid the big, obnoxious units until they've been whittled down. That's one of the advantages of having a deceptively fast army. I have little problem with the magic phase itself, I just don't care much for instajib effects of any kind.

N810
29-09-2010, 20:36
New intive only rule...
(my poor Lizardmen)
and lazer guided Autilary.

the rest I can live with...

Athough Some of the new FAQ's are unballanced...
(Tecellis I am looking at you)

Tykinkuula
29-09-2010, 22:57
Can't seem to decide between initiative, skirmisher changes, random charges, special weapon forcing and truelos.

I'll have to say they are all crap, but after careful consideration (and a coin toss between truelos/scpecial weaponry) I'll have to say weapon using rules is the lousiest change.

Synnister
29-09-2010, 23:50
I voted for magic rules and spells because I really hate the Magic Resistance rule now. But all the other rules about magic I like.

Xarlaxas
30-09-2010, 00:22
I think Magic resistance works quite well in principle as it stops the confusion over "well I didn't *target* that unit with the spell" but the fact that there are spells that "ignore all saves" thus making magic resistance useless in that respect, surely magic resistance should always work against any magic?

Another thing that bugs me a bit is Always Strike First now allowing you to re-roll misses if you have a higher initiative. Yet again that's another thing that doesn't bother me in principle but when you fight a High Elf army with all ASF re-rolling all their misses that seems kind of. . . ill-conceived.

Idle Scholar
30-09-2010, 00:26
TLOS. I'm not saying the other rules mentioned here are well done. Lord Inquisitor Pink sums it up quite nicely and I agree with the general sentiment of good ideas badly implemented. TLOS though? I don't even like the principle. Abstraction is the key word GW dammit.

Greyfire
30-09-2010, 02:10
TLOS for me, too. Because of that none of the hills are large enough to hide my carnasaur behind, and since it's taller than my steggie, he can be hit easier. He's not a large target but I can't hide him behind hills, or forests, or buildings, or... That's lame because it's a really great miniature. Now if you'll excuse me I'll get back to making more scenery...

Lord Inquisitor makes some good points about other weaknesses in 8th though. Almost changed my answer but TLoS really bugs me.

Spinocus
30-09-2010, 04:31
1) True LOS - Christ, I hate this 'if you can see any part of the model' nonsense. 7th ed was much simpler and delightfully abstract. Now I do like the To Hit penalties for BS based shooting vs partially obscured units but it means squat when dealing with non BS shooting & magic. Allowing units & war machines to shoot through a forest? Really?!? True LOS is fine for 40K where it's reasonable to think that futuristic weaponry & artillery can put a round through a fly's bunghole at 500m but for missile weapons that mirror their Medieval/Renaissance counterparts? Yeah right.

2) Terrain rules - I don't mind some aspects of the new terrain rules but I really hate how it's gone from being a major factor on the battlefield to a minor one. Somewhere in the middle would have been nice.

3) Panic - GW really dropped the ball with this one. All they had to do was modify the previous US 5 rule to '5 models or less rule' (3 if Monstrous Inf). I do believe there should be no exception for heroes & lords though. It should be incredibly demoralizing to see a famous, high standing 'somebody' get blown away, incinerated or panic and high tail it to the rear while screaming like a little girl with his/her hair on fire.

Steadfast - I love the inclusion of steadfast but also agree that it should be disallowed if a unit is flanked. Failing that there should be some kind of modifiable Ld test to see if Steadfast still applies. As it stands Steadfast encourages the use of fewer, larger blocks which takes away a bit of the epic feel of Warhammer.

ChrisIronBrow
30-09-2010, 04:55
I voted steadfast. Honestly, steadfast has ruined the game. It has made certain armies unbeatable. All cheap hordes of troops are now like 7th ed VC.

dimetri1
30-09-2010, 06:11
Well, I hate everything about 8th but TLOS is just F@#%&*G stupid!

Grimskarr
30-09-2010, 06:31
2) Terrain rules - I don't mind some aspects of the new terrain rules but I really hate how it's gone from being a major factor on the battlefield to a minor one. Somewhere in the middle would have been nice.
Voted Terrain. There are some neat ideas in the new terrain rules but overall they're a complete pain. It makes setting up the game that much longer and complicated and really doesn't restrict movement at all. If you nestle up to terrain now your flanks are just as exposed as if you were in the open. Maybe even more so if suddenly that bush ends up giving your opponent a huge combat boost. Just dumb. I definitely prefer 7th ed terrain rules.


Steadfast - I love the inclusion of steadfast but also agree that it should be disallowed if a unit is flanked. Failing that there should be some kind of modifiable Ld test to see if Steadfast still applies. As it stands Steadfast encourages the use of fewer, larger blocks which takes away a bit of the epic feel of Warhammer.
I agree: Steadfast is good, except it should be negated if the unit is disrupted.

ColShaw
30-09-2010, 15:53
I am in complete agreement with Grimskarr on both above points.

I also voted Terrain Rules.

Poseidal
30-09-2010, 16:38
Skirmish rules made them clunkier than before (where the rest of the game is generally more fluid).

Having to line them up is very annoying.

Grentain
30-09-2010, 22:03
I don't like the skirmisher rules, I think it makes them seem much less like actual skirmishers. For the most part, I just ignore the new terrian rules, 'cause of how dumb they are. That Steadfast can't be interrupted is bad, and I don't like not being able to change weapons, but the thing I dislike the most is not striking first on the charge.

Shizzbam
30-09-2010, 22:11
To be honest I'd say none of those listed in the pole. For me its cavalry requiring ten models now to discount ranks and skirmishers not being able to do it at all. Killed my Wood Elf army. Yes I know it can be worked around but it made it impossible to play them the way I enjoyed. And left me with a load of useless Glade Riders and Wardancers >.>

chivalrous
30-09-2010, 22:21
I was going to say that step-up is the rule I dislike the most but on the flip side, it balances the strikes last nerf Executioners received (still Assassins got a bit of a nerf but has forced them into the character killing/wounding role that they should perform).
With that having crossed my mind I was then going to agree with Shizzbam about the hit my Dark Riders took with regards to having to take twice as many models in a unit in order to disrupt ranks. But I was finding that tactic so successful that I was getting to the point where I stopped taking them.

So really, third on the list is inability to disrupt steadfast, especially for 'glass-hammer' armies that rely on breaking a unit on the charge... then again Dark Elf MSU armies were getting silly.

MasterSparks
30-09-2010, 22:41
I voted for "Always Striking in Initiative Order", although that's only half the truth. Together with the rules for casualties not being removed from the front rank, they've taken too much importance away from the charge.

I've also got some gripes about the über spells and the new Line of Sight system, but the above bit weighs the most by far.

CrystalSphere
30-09-2010, 23:08
If i can only pick one, then true line of sight, it is what have killed fantasy for me the most. Some of the other rules i don´t like much either, but that one was the final deal breaker for me.

Grimskarr
01-10-2010, 01:56
I agree: Steadfast is good, except it should be negated if the unit is disrupted.I was re-reading the rules for Steadfast today and I think I'm going to take a step back on my criticism. In retrospect I'd say that if a unit is engaged on two fronts (ie. front and flank) and is Disrupted then the Disruption should negate the Steadfast.

I realized that my earlier criticism if implemented would mean that a unit of 40 Dwarfs warriors flanked charged by 15 weedy goblins (5x3) would completely lose its confidence. The designers clearly think that with 8th edition a bigger group isn't going to cower before a smaller group. However, if it were already engaged and focused on one front and suddenly an enemy appeared and Disrupted them on an unexpected second front, then in the ensuing confusion it would make sense that their Steadfastness would be negated.

(edit - sp)

AMWOOD co
01-10-2010, 06:10
Shizzbam, your skirmishers couldn't disrupt ranks in 7th edition either... or 6th for that matter.

For me, I didn't have too hard a time, but my top three were the following.

3: Terrain. Terrain should do more than sometimes kill a few guys in terms of slowing a unit down. Ever try moving trough a forest compared to an open field at a run? You get easily turned in a forest.

2: Steadfast. I play both extremes. I have a Greenskin army and have hundred of Gobbos, but I also have a Warriors of Chaos army with next to no actual Marauders and 4 dozen Warriors (each dozen has a different weapon set). As such, steadfast has given me nothing but headaches trying to decide what to field and how to use/abuse it.

1: I voted for Random Charges. Didn't like the idea when I first heard rumours about it, and it has taken away a great deal of the tactical use of my Chaos Spawn. My gribblies (named Fluffy, Frufru, Birdie and Bluey) have thus changed from having almost average charge distances to the lowest in the game (only 2D6, tied with pump wagons). While I can measure all the time, I prefered that level of player skill rather than this excessive rolling shtik.

Alric
01-10-2010, 07:21
My three bugbears are random charges (too random), lack of disruption to steadfast (and steadfast in general, it's a lousy mechanic to begin with) and the terrain rules. After some deliberating I voted for the terrain. Yes, terrain from earlier editions needed a shakeup but terrain now has far too little impact on a game and how units manoeuver. The terrain relies on Wackyhammer effects to discourage you from just wandering right through it, which require bookkeeping and can be frankly excessively impacting on the game (I once lost just about 50% in model count of my 3000-point army to terrain effects!)

Ditto !

Only problem with this poll is we can only pick one.

Eternus
01-10-2010, 10:23
Only problem with this poll is we can only pick one.

That's the point mate. You have to really think about what makes the most difference.

I understand why the designers did what they did with Steadfast, and with fighting in 2 ranks, and with increasing the number of ranks you need to break rank bonus, and it all revolves around making core infantry, and infantry generally, the core of the army, which in my opinion is as it should be.

Some people didn't realise that if they insisted on making unbalanced armies the norm instead of the exception, eventually people would be given better incentives to create balanced armies, which I always have anyway - as I am sure many others have. If a person can't successfully self regulate, then the authorities invariably step in at some point.

What we have witnessed is a distinct shift of power from super units of heavy cavalry dominating the battlefield to more balanced 'combined arms' forces that have to be far more co-ordinated to be really decisive.

I mean, who got tired of having a single 1000 point super unit crash through their entire army, or your generals infantry unit fold because 5 light cavalry got into their flank? Wouldn't it nice to see more Bretonnian armies that include models on foot that aren't manning a Trebchet?

I still think maybe Steadfast is too much, and you should probably be able to negate it by putting a unit into the flank or rear that is large enough to deny ranks, or maybe Steadfast should just have added the difference in ranks to the deeper unit instead of making them effectively stubborn.

Don't forget though, a Steadfast unit doesn't apply combat res modifiers to their LD, but they do apply other mods to Ld, from spells or magic items or whatever.

Vsurma
01-10-2010, 12:18
Voted Terrain. There are some neat ideas in the new terrain rules but overall they're a complete pain. It makes setting up the game that much longer and complicated and really doesn't restrict movement at all. If you nestle up to terrain now your flanks are just as exposed as if you were in the open. Maybe even more so if suddenly that bush ends up giving your opponent a huge combat boost. Just dumb. I definitely prefer 7th ed terrain rules.


I agree: Steadfast is good, except it should be negated if the unit is disrupted.

I would say its not minor, its more random. While woods used to stop infantry units from moving pretty much completely, they might never get to the other side of the board if they had to cross a wood (very bad imo), they now don't slow you down at all for most things.

That said if they happen to be stupidity woods or poison ones, they may end up costing you a charge at a critical time or kill a quarter of your unit.

I recently played a game where a poison wood claimed over 10 models over the course of the game, half of which where 16pt templeguard!

The thing is that some times they do indeed do nothing, so yea, maybe they could do a tad more at times. Other times on the other hand, say with blood forrests, no one wants to go within poking distance of the thing.

WizzyWarlock
01-10-2010, 15:32
Most of the new rules annoy me on some level, but I think True Line of Sight is probably the worst, especially when considering warmachines and how deadly they've become. On the subject of warmachines, a rule not placed on the poll is another one I hate, and that's the fact that only two cavalry models can fight a warmachine crew. Fast Cavalry are usually the only type able to get there fast enough, and really don't have the hitting power in two models to really break through. Especially if the enemy are dwarves. Same problem with things like Eagles or Warhawks, yet again the Wood Elf army suffers.

Steadfast and stepping up are my other most hated. I can understand the principle, but it really hurts some armies, again the Wood Elves. Combine Steadfast with the fact almost all the combat units in a Wood Elf army are skirmish and you have an exercise in futility when fighting some enemy units.

EDIT: Actually, considering that all models are hit under a template, a warmachine can keep firing as normal even with only 1 crew member, they don't panic and run, can only be attacked by 2 cavalry/monstrous infantry, use the warmachines toughness against shooting attacks, and now have laser guidance systems, I think warmachines are my biggest hatred of the new rules.

Lord Inquisitor
01-10-2010, 15:58
Most of the new rules annoy me on some level, but I think True Line of Sight is probably the worst, especially when considering warmachines and how deadly they've become. On the subject of warmachines, a rule not placed on the poll is another one I hate, and that's the fact that only two cavalry models can fight a warmachine crew. Fast Cavalry are usually the only type able to get there fast enough, and really don't have the hitting power in two models to really break through. Especially if the enemy are dwarves. Same problem with things like Eagles or Warhawks, yet again the Wood Elf army suffers.
... You mean three cavalry can attack, no? Coupled with +1 combat res for charging, three cavalry should be able to deal with your average war machine. Dwarfs have always been problematic, but all other warmachines should fold easily against even fast cav. I've had lone wizards charge war machines and break them (charges in, no wounds inflicted on either side, war machines loses due to the +1 for charging). Eagles and Warhawks should be able to deal with war machines easily. I mean, you default to winning combat by 1, so unless they do two wounds to you and you do none to them, you won't lose!

a18no
01-10-2010, 16:39
Steadfast is great like that, having a unit in the side would have made the rule a brain fart. Many people would have played it for 6 months and then back to MSU style. Cause for 35 guys, you can get 1 unit of 20 and 1 of 15, can get flank (bonus for flank), 20 guys fighting (10 for each unit) against 15 (8 in front and 7 in flank). So everything goes for MSU, and nothing for big unit... not an improvement at all, back to 7th.

Steadfast could have been different, 2 ways:

1- the offensive way: the unit with the most rank add any number of rank to the resolution of his side. The rank bonus is gone. Only the side with the most rank got bonuses. So a deep unit would have been a way to counter balance the lost on number of attacks by giving more static resolution. Still a problem for skirmisher and cavalry, but they just need to do more wounds: 35 are 7 deep, so the opponent need to do 7 wounds to disrupt the steadfast rule.
2- the defensive way: the side with the most rank total has all of his unit steadfat. So if you bring 2 unit with a total of 4 ranks, against a unit 4 deep, nothing is steadfast. But having a unit of 4 deep and one 1 deep would make the 1 deep AND the 4 deep steadfast if the opposing side got only 2 unit with 2 ranks each.

But I really prefer the rule as it is. It's not a game breaking rule, behing steadfast won't make you win a game. Having a unit of 5 chaos knight that can destroy any unit IS a game breaking, and is not supposed to be possible. R&F infantry are supposed to ground cavalry, it's the purpose of having a big unit of guys.

Lord Inquisitor
01-10-2010, 17:31
I disagree. Right now there's little incentive to flank, reduced return attacks an a paltry +1 and that's it. Oooh, you can disrupt the enemy, eh? Well fantastic, that usually means exactly nothing, unless the specific situation comes up where the enemy manages to put on more wounds on you than you do on them, despite having two ranks to their one file. Unless you have enough ranks to cancel steadfast and it becomes a landslide. Any system whereby winning by 1 is as good as winning by 10 creates quirky oddities.

Yeah, it's promoted giant infantry units, rather than MSU. What was wrong with MSU, or at least the possibility of MSU? Particularly if I hit your unit of 40 with two units of 20 (given the difficulties in doing so with random charges, etc), one in the front and one in the flank, shouldn't that put me in a better position than just smacking in the front with one big unit of 40?

As to your suggestions (1) ... like, I dunno, a rank bonus? :eyebrows: [edit] No, wait, you're suggesting that the rank bonus only apply to the unit with the most ranks? Why? That's even more stupid than Steadfast and (2) yes, this would be very, very much better (although as I posted earlier, a system that isn't all-or-nothing would be better).

I don't understand why you think the unit with the most ranks should have such a major advantage. A unit of 9 ranks should make a unit of 8 ranks run away but run away itself from a unit of 10 ranks?

Gaargod
01-10-2010, 17:55
I actually wrote a set of house rules which addressed pretty much all of these complaints (excepting random charges and pre-measuring, as unfortunately the rest of the game changed around them, and its way too much work to try and rebalance it all).

But the big one would be the line of sight rules, including lazuh guided artillery.

Steadfast would be fine with just a few changes...

a18no
01-10-2010, 18:50
I disagree. Right now there's little incentive to flank, reduced return attacks an a paltry +1 and that's it. Oooh, you can disrupt the enemy, eh? Well fantastic, that usually means exactly nothing, unless the specific situation comes up where the enemy manages to put on more wounds on you than you do on them, despite having two ranks to their one file. Unless you have enough ranks to cancel steadfast and it becomes a landslide. Any system whereby winning by 1 is as good as winning by 10 creates quirky oddities.

Yeah, it's promoted giant infantry units, rather than MSU. What was wrong with MSU, or at least the possibility of MSU? Particularly if I hit your unit of 40 with two units of 20 (given the difficulties in doing so with random charges, etc), one in the front and one in the flank, shouldn't that put me in a better position than just smacking in the front with one big unit of 40?

As to your suggestions (1) ... like, I dunno, a rank bonus? :eyebrows: [edit] No, wait, you're suggesting that the rank bonus only apply to the unit with the most ranks? Why? That's even more stupid than Steadfast and (2) yes, this would be very, very much better (although as I posted earlier, a system that isn't all-or-nothing would be better).

I don't understand why you think the unit with the most ranks should have such a major advantage. A unit of 9 ranks should make a unit of 8 ranks run away but run away itself from a unit of 10 ranks?

I know the idea was bad. But it's just a way to play it "offensivly".

Well played, they can block you there for 2 turns, 4 rounds of combat. After that they break, you got 2 roll to reach them. They are all dead and you got full VP, he got nothing. Where's the problems??? And we are talking of unit with exactly the same value and strenght, not even considering a good flanking unit that can dish more dmg for the same price.

Let say spear warriors in front, and great weapon on flank. Imagine flank cost 1,7 front (12 pts executionner for 7 pts spear for exemple), against full 40.

player A got 40 spears (12 attacks the front, max possible on the flank)
Player B got 20 spears in front and 12 GW in flank.
They all got 5+ armor, no ward. GW hit on 3, wounds on 2, others on 4+/4+

Turn 1 Round 1:
Player B do 3 wounds for warriors
Player A do 2 in front and 1 on flank
Player B do 6 with GW warrior.
Player A has 31left, and lost by 7, steadfast
Player B has 17 front, 11 flank

Turn 1 Round 2:
Player B do 3 wounds for warriors
Player A do 2 in front and 1 on flank
Player B do 6 with GW warrior
Player A has 25 left, and lost by 7, steadfast
Player B has 15 front, 10 flank

Turn 2 Round 1:
Player B do 3 wounds for warriors
Player A do 2 in front and 1 on flank
Player B do 5 with GW warrior
Player A has 17 left, and lost by 6, steadfast
Player B has 13 front, 9 flank


Turn 2 Round 2:
Player B do 2 wounds for warriors
Player A do 2 in front and 1 on flank
Player B do 4 with GW warrior
Player A has 11 left, and lost by 5, no steadfast, break
Player B has 11 front, 8 flank

2 turn of combat... MSU is still playable, Player A loose all point and kill an equivalent of 15 guys (not even 38% of their own point), and lost 40. Result: full VP for player B, 0 for player A. You seem to not have properly consider the MSU tactic. Without steadfast, it's done on the first turn. So why playing unit of 40??? At least steadfast give some tactic to the player.

Nurglus-the-Seeping
01-10-2010, 20:21
I think the issue here is the interaction on the battlefield between units where individual troopers cost very little and can be fielded in giant units, and troops whose combat potential per individual model is much higher than average, but cost more points wise. I will admit that I am not the greatest general in the game, but I've always had a problem with how the rules for these units interact. As someone who has played skaven for a long time I am very familiar with what has happened in the past with cheap crappy troops. In short... they lose. There was absolutely no point in taking large blocks of troops because there was a limit on how much benefit you could get from it. Bringing a unit of 100 clanrats was silly because they would die just as easily as a unit of 30.
It drove me bonkers that a unit which outnumbered another 3-1 couldn't hope to do anything other than die if it engaged. Honestly it doesn't matter how good a fighter you are if enough bodies swarm you, you go down.

Frankly I think steadfast was an especially needed mechanic because it does help make bringing cheap troops worth it. I'll never win combat against a choppy unit, but I'm not going to just instantly flee either. I fully think it is fair that my guys are going to get cut down like ripe wheat before a thresher against a unit who paid points for combat ability, just as I think it's fair that my guys do not easily get broken and then run down when it happens. You pay for combat killiness, I pay for my troops being resolute.

I understand the frustrations of the people who hate the rule however. If I played WoC I would be very frustrated if I brought a 500 point unit of Chaos knights and they were tar pitted from early in the game by a skavenslave unit who then would not break, who then tie my knights up for the entire game and cost less than half my points.

I don't know what the solution is to this issue. I just feel that the past system way too heavily slanted against armies made up of numerous but crappy troops.

Commissar Vaughn
01-10-2010, 20:34
The Parry/HW+S save rule: doesnt matter if it gave +1 armour save or a 6+ ward, it should never have been written.

theorox
01-10-2010, 20:48
I personally don't think TLOS is that bad at all. :)

Theo

Lord Inquisitor
01-10-2010, 22:25
I know the idea was bad. But it's just a way to play it "offensivly".

Well played, they can block you there for 2 turns, 4 rounds of combat. After that they break, you got 2 roll to reach them. They are all dead and you got full VP, he got nothing. Where's the problems??? And we are talking of unit with exactly the same value and strenght, not even considering a good flanking unit that can dish more dmg for the same price.
You make a fair point. However, I was assuming the charger was more powerful than the chargee - the essense of tactics is to apply sufficient force at a single place to reduce return damage and wipe out the enemy as quickly as possible. Perhaps a better example would have been a 6-rank unit against a 4-rank unit compared with two three rank units versus a 4 rank unit. Usually you'll be better off with the 6-rank unit, both offensively and defensively, and while the two smaller units will kill the enemy faster and rack up more combat resultion if they can multicharge the enemy - they're defensively weak versus the enemy, and all that extra resolution doesn't mean anything if the enemy is steadfast. This allows the enemy to bring his forces to bear, and my tactical advantage of applying a large portion of my army against a small portion of his is gone.

Combined with random charges, this makes multi-charging risky. If one of the 3-rank units gets in but the other doesn't, then they are liable to be killed piecemeal by the larger unit. It's harder to achieve a multi-charge, and it is generally less effective. MSU is really dead for most armies. MLU might work.

I'm not saying that there's no point in flanking ever, and it is always better to flank than not - if this were the case I'm not sure I'd play the game! And I do like 8th, much of it is far better. But steadfast dillutes the impact of tactical manuvering. I'm discovering more and more that instead of trying to be tricky, smashing a unit dead on is the best approach. Your number 2 option was something I assumed would be the case when 8th was just a rumour and was very unhappy that it wasn't - surely it would be logical to add up all the ranks on each side for steadfast! If this were the rules I'd have much less issue with it (although there are still problems with that solution). I really dislike the all-or-nothing nature of steadfast - all those extra ranks of yours mean nothing if the enemy has more.


I think the issue here is the interaction on the battlefield between units where individual troopers cost very little and can be fielded in giant units, and troops whose combat potential per individual model is much higher than average, but cost more points wise. I will admit that I am not the greatest general in the game, but I've always had a problem with how the rules for these units interact. As someone who has played skaven for a long time I am very familiar with what has happened in the past with cheap crappy troops. In short... they lose. There was absolutely no point in taking large blocks of troops because there was a limit on how much benefit you could get from it. Bringing a unit of 100 clanrats was silly because they would die just as easily as a unit of 30.
It drove me bonkers that a unit which outnumbered another 3-1 couldn't hope to do anything other than die if it engaged. Honestly it doesn't matter how good a fighter you are if enough bodies swarm you, you go down.
Has this not been addressed by the step up and horde rules? Skaven clanrats can put out a scary amount of damage these days.


Frankly I think steadfast was an especially needed mechanic because it does help make bringing cheap troops worth it. I'll never win combat against a choppy unit, but I'm not going to just instantly flee either. I fully think it is fair that my guys are going to get cut down like ripe wheat before a thresher against a unit who paid points for combat ability, just as I think it's fair that my guys do not easily get broken and then run down when it happens. You pay for combat killiness, I pay for my troops being resolute.
But this could have been so much better implemented. What if you added your ranks (ignoring skaven for the moment) to your Ld, but still applied all modifiers? 5 extra ranks, lost combat by 5, test on straight Ld. This way disruption, flanks, kills and stuff would actually matter and the number of ranks would scale with how "steadfast" your unit was. Best of all, it wouldn't be dependent on the opponent's rank bonus (that's already taken into account by their, y'know, rank bonus!).


I don't know what the solution is to this issue. I just feel that the past system way too heavily slanted against armies made up of numerous but crappy troops.
I get that. I really like the armies I see these days with infantry being important. It's good! But Steadfast was a lousy way to do it. It worked, I guess, but it causes problems with other parts of the game that weren't broken before.


The Parry/HW+S save rule: doesnt matter if it gave +1 armour save or a 6+ ward, it should never have been written.
Eh, I think a bonus for HW/S isn't terrible, but I really don't like the ward parry. I'm sorry, I've a magic weapon that cuts through any armour, or a gigantic monster that can just crush you like a bug. How does your shield help?

Badbones777
02-10-2010, 02:02
I voted for true line of sight - In truth I don't necessarily dislike the rule, it's just my least favourite out of those listed - Overall I really like 8th ed -despite thinking I'd hate it.

As far as not being able to choose weapons goes, I can understand why some people won't like it, but it's personally one of my favourite new rules - to my mind it makes a lot of sense, and also means that you can't have one unit that can "do it all" and it makes you pick and choose your fights just a shade more carefully - Spearmen (shockingly!) have to rely on their spears, just as Halberdiers have to rely on their Halberds. Imagine my shock when troops trained and drilled for years in the use of a specific weapon actually use it in the game now! I like that if you want the parry save its essentially only with troops who exclusively use a Hand weapon and shield - all makes perfect sense to me, but on the other hand I can certainly see how it can annoyand frustrate people used to the earlier way HW+S worked!

Teongpeng
02-10-2010, 02:19
the mistake everybody keep making about steadfast is equating it to "units do not break".

Lord Inquisitor
02-10-2010, 02:27
True, but it can be pretty close for any unit within range of the general/BSB, or for armies like Dwarfs or Skaven with a high (effective) Ld across the board.

Eternus
02-10-2010, 03:20
the mistake everybody keep making about steadfast is equating it to "units do not break".


True, but it can be pretty close for any unit within range of the general/BSB, or for armies like Dwarfs or Skaven with a high (effective) Ld across the board.

True it is now tougher to make units break in many cases, but this is also part of the general change in the way the game plays which results, quite simply, in more casualties from actual combat, rather than hordes of models being mown down as they flee.

I for one am much happier seeing units actually die fighting than games that revolve around a first turn of combat break having caused minimal casualties but wiping out the enemy front rank, and then cutting down a much bigger unit as they flee. Now those elite hammer units actually have to kill the enemy unit rather than just the front rank each turn until they break, with little chance of suffering casualties in return.

Synnister
02-10-2010, 03:31
True it is now tougher to make units break in many cases, but this is also part of the general change in the way the game plays which results, quite simply, in more casualties from actual combat, rather than hordes of models being mown down as they flee.

I for one am much happier seeing units actually die fighting than games that revolve around a first turn of combat break having caused minimal casualties but wiping out the enemy front rank, and then cutting down a much bigger unit as they flee. Now those elite hammer units actually have to kill the enemy unit rather than just the front rank each turn until they break, with little chance of suffering casualties in return.

I'd agree with this. Although some armies have been really affected with this change. Namely DoC. But they had it easy last edition so tough :p

Lord Inquisitor
02-10-2010, 04:00
Well, don't worry about DoC, given that they have a range of abilities and spells that can directly modify a unit's Ld or how they take a break test. :p My Slaanesh army doesn't care too much about Steadfast usually.

ChaosCajun
02-10-2010, 04:40
I voted Terrain. It feels gimmicky and doesn't really affect movement all that much. I would think TLOS would bget my vote, but so far I haven't played any rules lawyers trying to cheese this against me. We normally get the best angle and if can't agree, we roll a die. This may change based on experience in future. The VP system is irksome, but as long as I'm rolling dice and killing troops on either side, it matters little to me. For now, my biggest gripe is not magic per se, but the way Magic Resist has been nerfed to not affect 2/3 of the spells, even ones that can kill you! It makes no sense to me. All the others I can deal with and I particularly like the return of init. order combat. I always hated that change.

SatireSphere
02-10-2010, 04:56
New victory points system. I want points for units that are fleeing at the end of the game and half points for half destroyed units. Why not just take three massive units that never run away and just play victory points denial every game?

ChrisIronBrow
02-10-2010, 12:02
the mistake everybody keep making about steadfast is equating it to "units do not break".

The mistake people keep making is assuming breaking steadfast is easy, or even realistic in certain match-ups.

There are 6 turns to a game, with models that cost 2 pts each a combat army can't really break even in that time frame.

Go ahead, kill all 50 night goblins, skaven slaves, gnoblars, etc.. it'll take you 3+ turns, and you'll get a whopping 100 vp, if your lucky enough to be playing for VP's.

If you don't think steadfast is a problem you either have an army that can easily break it, more cheap troops, LD denial. Or you haven't seen it used right yet.

The issue isn't steadfast on most troops, it's steadfast on the stupid cheap troops. good luck taking objectives, or breakpoints when you spend 4-5 turns killing 25% of their army.

Haravikk
02-10-2010, 12:34
I put changes to magic rules and spells, though it's not strictly true; I don't like the overall result of the magic rules (I've been referring to it as the Russian Roulette phase), though the basic mechanic of the phase isn't all that bad, it's the overpowered spells that make it bad. I would have much rather they'd gone with a similar mechanic, but made it easier to cast spells, and provided every lore in the rulebook so that they could consistently reduce spell effects, that way magic would have had a more consistent, tactical presence rather than being something that could potentially ruin a game for one player, regardless of how tactically brilliant they were.

True line of sight has the potential to be a terrible rule, but I've yet to have any real problems with that, but then that's because my opponents favour sticking to how things were in 7th for the most part, and because I've yet to have one unsporting enough to try and abuse the rule.

Tzeentch Lover
02-10-2010, 17:41
Changes to the skirmishing rules. I hardly ever run any(not many to choose from between OK, O&G, and WoC), but my experience so far is that the new formation just slows the game way down if my opponent has several units(or they just play it completely wrong).

Every other change I either like or don't care about. Although Purple Sun+the Death Lore attribute= :wtf:

Nurglus-the-Seeping
02-10-2010, 18:35
LI, I think your opponents are luckier than mine. Hoard rules and step up do not address the problem suffered by cheap crappy troops. For one thing step up still favors the elite expensive troop over the cheap troop. If step-up was its own special rule called like... I don't know "Mob-fighting" and was ONLY applied to certain (read cheap) troops it would be a step in the right direction. But this wouldn't solve the problem. Alot of crappy attacks are needed to offset the damage potential carried by elite troops. For example, if we completely got rid of the stead fast rule, but left step-up and hoard rules would you at all fear or hesitate to charge a unit of chaos knights into an equally costed unit of clanrats? I'm no mathematician but from my experience I'm not going to cause any damage to them.

Lets assume the knights are the old 5-wide configuration and the clanrats are in hoard formation, heck let's even give them spears.

I'm going to get 7 clanrats in base to base, including the champion. My attacks would be thus:

8 (Front Rank + Champion) + 7 (Step up) + 7 (Spears) + 7 (Hoard) = 29 Attacks

I'm attacking something with higher weapon skill so statisticaly half may attacks will miss = 14.5 hits
I'm attacking something which has higher toughness so only 1/3 wound if toughness 4 and 1/6 if toughness 5.

4.8 Wound if Toughness 4
2.4 Wound if Toughness 5

Now their armor saves kick in which means that only 1/6 the successful wounds actually do anything. So statistically I do no wounds to you. You on the other hand cut my guys down like ripe corn. I'll now most likely break since your attacks will most likely overcome my static 4 CR (Ranks and banner). I appologise I don't have the stats on Chaos knights handy.

You can clearly see that step up and hoard give the player something to do, which is much better than sitting there and doing nothing, but lots of crappy attacks is still crappy attacks. If a math person could figure it out how many attacks would a WS3 S3 unit have to put out to equal the statistical successful dmg output of a basic non-upgraded unit of chaos knights.

Anyway I know I'm rambling but my point is that steadfast works. It is in my opinion the best rule they have come out with because it makes cheap troops worth bringing in numbers. I do feel that there should be a rule that through tactical play can break steadfast, but I don't think that just getting flanked should do it.

ChrisIronBrow
02-10-2010, 23:27
Anyway I know I'm rambling but my point is that steadfast works. It is in my opinion the best rule they have come out with because it makes cheap troops worth bringing in numbers. I do feel that there should be a rule that through tactical play can break steadfast, but I don't think that just getting flanked should do it.

Steadfast does work. That's the problem. Infantry needed to be better. Now certain infantry, (all cheap infantry) is unbreakable. A skaven slave is 2 points, a chaos Knight is 40. 5 chaos knights are 2x the cost of 50 slaves. There is no chance for the knights to win that fight. That's what doesn't make sense.

Every single game is like playing VC now. it's stupid.

It does make cheap troops worth bringing in numbers, the problem is that's all that's worth taking now.

Grimhack
02-10-2010, 23:45
I'm surprised no one mentioned the easy banner loss... Well, sure, most armies don't have a lot of trouble because they are steadfast or have high leadership or are almost all unbreakable (damn you skaven and VC).
Maybe it's just because I play ogres and dislike 3 wound models dying like that... or worse, my bsb dying like that.

Also, the true line of sight is actually a bit of a pity, the thing I always liked about warhammer are the over the top converted monsters and characters and stuff like that. Now we might see those awesome models staying on a display shelf and being replaced by small models that are harder to hit.
Not to mention that it could be abused if you are a bit good at modelling, I can imagine say, a carnosaur, being modelled as if it is crawling instead of charging just to be less visible.

Grimskarr
03-10-2010, 05:17
Anyway I know I'm rambling but my point is that steadfast works. It is in my opinion the best rule they have come out with because it makes cheap troops worth bringing in numbers. I do feel that there should be a rule that through tactical play can break steadfast, but I don't think that just getting flanked should do it.
I agree completely. I like Steadfast overall but it should be able to be countered (and by something more then a simple flank attack). Hence, this proposal ...


I was re-reading the rules for Steadfast today and I think I'm going to take a step back on my criticism. In retrospect I'd say that if a unit is engaged on two fronts (ie. front and flank) and is Disrupted then the Disruption should negate the Steadfast.

I realized that my earlier criticism if implemented would mean that a unit of 40 Dwarfs warriors flanked charged by 15 weedy Goblins (5x3) would completely lose its confidence. The designers clearly think that with 8th edition a bigger group isn't going to cower before a smaller group. However, if it were already engaged and focused on one front and suddenly an enemy appeared and Disrupted them on an unexpected second front, then in the ensuing confusion it would make sense that their Steadfastness would be negated.
I think this idea would also go a long ways to giving back some of the impact that cavalry has lost in the game. With this change the combination of a small unit of cavalry to the front supported with a large unit to the side would be able to wipe away a unit. It'd make exposing your big unit's flanks a big no-no - the way it should be.

Kayosiv
03-10-2010, 14:06
I think the problem with steadfast, the big problem, is that it doesn't work like the old 7th edition stubborn rules.

Steadfast becomes an issue with cheap troops because units can be padded to the point that they are unbreakable for several turns due to using the generals leadership and the BSB re-rolls mitigating the odds of fleeing to somewhere around 5-10%.

If those Goblins or Skaven Slaves are steadfast on leadership 5-7, that's reasonable. Leadership 9 men-at-arms or leadership 10 clanrats is NOT reasonable.

Every army has a leadership 9 or 10. If they want to stick the general in a unit of chumps to make ONE super steadfast unit, fine by me. The point is that nobody is complaining about a unit of steadfast dwarves, because that unit costs 500 points to make. Things with high leadership are generally expensive anyway.

If units had to take steadfast on their own unmodified leadership, or the best leadership of a character IN THE UNIT, I don't think it would be nearly as bad.

Eternus
03-10-2010, 15:20
In a way though, Steadfast just adds another element to the battle plan - you need to think even harder about which units are matched against which opponents, and target the right units to ensure they lose some ranks before combat ensues so that you can break them more easily.

The influence of a General and Battle Standard can't cover the whole battle line in most armies, so use your more maneouverable units to engage those units outside the influence of the LD bonuses. Steadfast infantry may be hard to shift, but they are also going to be more unwieldy than smaller elite units.

A unit of 15 Swordmasters or Chaos Warriors can probably chop up a unit of 30 Skaven Slaves over a few turns, purely because of the huge difference in individual killing power. Yes, the elite unit costs more, but that's par for the course, no point moaning about it - it's like complaining about not being able to take down the Hell Pit Abomination with a unit worth the same number of points - it simply isn't likely, or maybe even possible.

We need to think more about the weaknesses of things like units with lots of ranks that can rely on being Steadfast, rather than just what their strengths are. If you hit a Steadfast unit in both flanks, then it'll go down, just because they can't muster enough return attacks without 'step up', especially against a unit with decent killing power, and it doesn't matter which way they turn, they are engaged in the flanks or even rear. If they don't get help and fast, they're done.

I think that almost all the changes in 8th Edition add another layer to the depth of cunning you have to employ to be successful. Nothing is as cut and dried as it used to be, which is great.

Lordsaradain
03-10-2010, 15:59
Changes to skirmisher rulse and being unable to choose what weapons to fight with.

BorderKing
03-10-2010, 16:06
I think skirmisher rules are just wrong. They needed redoing but GW failed and just made skirmishers worse.

WizzyWarlock
03-10-2010, 16:59
... You mean three cavalry can attack, no? Coupled with +1 combat res for charging, three cavalry should be able to deal with your average war machine. Dwarfs have always been problematic, but all other warmachines should fold easily against even fast cav. I've had lone wizards charge war machines and break them (charges in, no wounds inflicted on either side, war machines loses due to the +1 for charging). Eagles and Warhawks should be able to deal with war machines easily. I mean, you default to winning combat by 1, so unless they do two wounds to you and you do none to them, you won't lose!

No, only 2 cavalry / monstrous infantry can attack. The rules read: Only 6 models can be chosen per war machine. Monstrous infantry/cavalry/beasts count as 3 models.

Thus only 2 cavalry may fight a warmachine crew.

Venerable_Bede
03-10-2010, 17:19
True Line of Sight is the worst because it's the most difficult to apply.

All the other rules changes listed can be rationalized or are simply a matter of taste.

Grimskarr
03-10-2010, 17:34
@ WizzyWarlock: Checked out the rule on p. 110 and, yeah, you're right. Mostly. It says, "... monstrous infantry/cavalry/beasts each count as three models ..." So that would include only 3 troop types:

Monstrous Infantry
Monstrous Cavalry
Monstrous Beasts

The trick to interpreting this rule is to recognize that the word 'monstrous' is an adjective and describing the 3 nouns that follow it. Therefore, normal cavalry would still fight with 6 models when attacking a war machine.

Gazak Blacktoof
03-10-2010, 18:01
The changes to skirmish formation aren't very practical. You need a lot of movement trays to make it work.

Mechnically I also don't like the auto-hits from templates- it is simply too devastating.


There are a few balance tweaks I would make, but those are the only mechanics I would change in the rulebook.

ChrisIronBrow
03-10-2010, 18:02
In a way though, Steadfast just adds another element to the battle plan - you need to think even harder about which units are matched against which opponents, and target the right units to ensure they lose some ranks before combat ensues so that you can break them more easily.

This is only accurate if by "some ranks" you mean5-6 ranks.




The influence of a General and Battle Standard can't cover the whole battle line in most armies, so use your more maneouverable units to engage those units outside the influence of the LD bonuses. Steadfast infantry may be hard to shift, but they are also going to be more unwieldy than smaller elite units.


Yes, they can. There is no downside to a steadfast block being flanked, so no reason to spread out. With Swift reform they are in fact more maneuverable than smaller units.




A unit of 15 Swordmasters or Chaos Warriors can probably chop up a unit of 30 Skaven Slaves over a few turns, purely because of the huge difference in individual killing power. Yes, the elite unit costs more, but that's par for the course, no point moaning about it - it's like complaining about not being able to take down the Hell Pit Abomination with a unit worth the same number of points - it simply isn't likely, or maybe even possible.

This argument is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Or rather, this is an entire separate discussion your starting. If you believe point values shouldn't represent... value. that's your choice. I disagree.

When an army only has "elite" units, steadfast beats them, Not their opponent, but the steadfast rule.








We need to think more about the weaknesses of things like units with lots of ranks that can rely on being Steadfast, rather than just what their strengths are. If you hit a Steadfast unit in both flanks, then it'll go down, just because they can't muster enough return attacks without 'step up', especially against a unit with decent killing power, and it doesn't matter which way they turn, they are engaged in the flanks or even rear. If they don't get help and fast, they're done.

No, seriously, none of that is true. Steadfast being a problem has nothing to do with the combat ability of steadfast troops. So go ahead, and double flank and rear charge them all at once. You'll still need to kill them to the (almost)last man.




I think that almost all the changes in 8th Edition add another layer to the depth of cunning you have to employ to be successful. Nothing is as cut and dried as it used to be, which is great.

Not unless you describe "cunning" as take bigger units.
Hordes of steadfast troops won't always win games, but they can almost always draw them. That's why it's a problem.

Lord Inquisitor
03-10-2010, 18:05
Yeah... You're right WizzyWarlock, but after reading and re-reading the section, I agree with Grimskarr. So six regular cavalry or two monstrous cavalry.

ChrisIronBrow
03-10-2010, 18:10
The trick to interpreting this rule is to recognize that the word 'monstrous' is an adjective and describing the 3 nouns that follow it. Therefore, normal cavalry would still fight with 6 models when attacking a war machine.

I don't think that's what it says. Monstrous isn't an adjective in this case since the word "Monstrous Infantry" is a title. So the rule says it affects 3 things, "monstrous infantry", "cavalry", and "beasts".

For example;

I like red cars, rainbows, and greenskins. In this case "red" can only apply to "cars"

stripsteak
03-10-2010, 18:37
I don't think that's what it says. Monstrous isn't an adjective in this case since the word "Monstrous Infantry" is a title. So the rule says it affects 3 things, "monstrous infantry", "cavalry", and "beasts".

For example;

I like red cars, rainbows, and greenskins. In this case "red" can only apply to "cars"

RBRB FAQ pg 5
Q: Where there are references to monstrous infantry/cavalry/beasts
does this mean just monstrous infantry, monstrous cavalry and
monstrous beasts (and not ‘ordinary’ cavalry and beasts)? (various)
A: Yes.

Nurglus-the-Seeping
03-10-2010, 18:38
So what would your solution to Steadfast be, ChrisIronBrow? With the way Victory points work currently choppy hard to kill units are the absolute best points buy there is in the game. A unit of Tzeench Chaos warriors is a steal at whatever cost, because you need to kill them all to get any points for them, and they are extremely resilient, and they chop opposing units to shreds. Steadfast makes cheap troops worth bringing because for once they can be counted on to actually do something, and not just serve as a bunker for a character, or blocks for the opponent to just kill.

The way the game is currently structured, I am not going to get ANY VP using a slave unit. They are not going to chop up any unit by themselves, and complete destruction is all that matters.

Now once again I do understand and agree that SOMETHING should break steadfast. I can understand how unfun it is to have a killy unit tarpitted an entire game with a unit that cost 1/4 its points but I don't agree that just flanking should do it. I want to avoid EVER going back to the days when monsters, Greater Deamons, and Characters completely dominated the entire game. For those of us who don't have equal access to those choices the game could become incredibly unfun.

Lord Inquisitor
03-10-2010, 18:41
Stripsteak's already settled this, but ChrisIronBrow, were you actually suggesting that regular beasts count as three models but monstrous beasts count as only one? :eyebrows:

Grimskarr
03-10-2010, 20:55
I like red cars, rainbows, and greenskins. In this case "red" can only apply to "cars"The problem with this rebuttal is that the text does not use commas to separate the nouns but uses slashes(/) therefore the adjective applies to all three nouns.

Also, even though "Monstrous Beasts" is a title that doesn't cause the word 'monstrous' to cease being an adjective.

WizzyWarlock
03-10-2010, 21:25
RBRB FAQ pg 5
Q: Where there are references to monstrous infantry/cavalry/beasts
does this mean just monstrous infantry, monstrous cavalry and
monstrous beasts (and not ‘ordinary’ cavalry and beasts)? (various)
A: Yes.

Ah, nice find. That sorts that out then, finally can get a decent amount of cavalry in there.

ChrisIronBrow
03-10-2010, 21:42
The problem with this rebuttal is that the text does not use commas to separate the nouns but uses slashes(/) therefore the adjective applies to all three nouns.

Also, even though "Monstrous Beasts" is a title that doesn't cause the word 'monstrous' to cease being an adjective.

Yeah yeah, my bad. Somehow I misread it as using comma's. The slashes make it clear your right.

Lord Inquisitor
03-10-2010, 23:32
Ah, nice find. That sorts that out then, finally can get a decent amount of cavalry in there.

Actually more cavalry than you used to be able to! ;)

Shizzbam
03-10-2010, 23:39
Shizzbam, your skirmishers couldn't disrupt ranks in 7th edition either... or 6th for that matter.

I know that, I was referring to 8th edition having nerfed wardancers (a unit I enjoyed using) along with small units of cavalry. I didn't mean they'd been nerfed in the same way. Didn't explain that clearly originally, apologies! :)

Dyrnwyn
04-10-2010, 00:44
I voted for the skirmisher changes - purely because my army consists largely of skirmishers. Movement is extremely awkward now, and I lost most of my little advantages. As far as sweeping changes that I hate across the board, TLOS and the terrain changes come in very close behind them.

Laser guided artillery and magic are in third place for me.

rocdocta
04-10-2010, 01:36
i voted for retarded terrain, but all the new rules irk me.

at the past 2 8th ed tournaments 6x2200 and 6x1500 with 34 and 42 players, most of the players said that they felt the system was poorer and rewarded the dice and not the skill. unsatisfying wins was a common thread.

The only players that liked the new 8th ed rules at a toirney were players with less than a year in fantasy ie not experienced, ex40k players.

DaemonReign
04-10-2010, 02:24
I voted "Changes to Magic/Spells"

.. because the Magic phase is the only phase with serious faults in 8th Ed compared to 7th.
- It does not scale with battle-size or investment into magic by individual generals.
- Bound spells are FUBAR.

On the other hand, there's a few things that are alot better of course.. The fact that miscasts are associated with IF now rather than annoying "failures" is a great change. The new Lores of Magic are much better than the previous ones - even though now of course certain race-specific lores seriously need an update (specifically the DoC tzeentch Lore is total crap compared to what it's supposed to be).

There are other minor points here and there perhaps, things that I would have done better but that doesn't warrant any lengthy complaining..

For example:
You can stomp WarBeasts but not Cavalry. Stupid. This implies that a FleshHound is less durable than a ******* pony. My rule would have been that only Cav with Barding was Immune to Stomp. That would have been perfect.

I maintain that it would have been "more fun" to count "aggregate ranks" for Steadfast - even though this really isn't a big issue because it's a one in a million instance where such a rule-change would actually matter. The Horde-rule and the Steadfast rule are AWESOME in all other respects - all though I must say it's a bit "meh" that VC/TK were just left out in the Steadfast dept.

The "not choosing weapon" bit is about as stupid as the fact certain BSB's can take shields while others can't. This one is pretty minor though, I mean, just house-rule it..

Tzeentch Lover
04-10-2010, 03:09
For example:
You can stomp WarBeasts but not Cavalry. Stupid. This implies that a FleshHound is less durable than a ******* pony.

I find it extremely hilarious that a Razordon can be stomped. *Insert image of a giant hopping on one foot after squishing a lizard covered in spikes. :D*

Tarian
04-10-2010, 03:45
I don't like the "Forced to use Specials" rule, as I liked my Stormvermin to use Sword and Board...

Lord Inquisitor
04-10-2010, 03:58
The fact that miscasts are associated with IF now rather than annoying "failures" is a great change.
Funny, I think this is the one thing that's caused the most problems. Would we have all the complaints about powerscrolls and uberspells, issues with teclis or cupped handed slaan if the old double-1 autofails and miscasts rule were still there?

Chris_
04-10-2010, 04:03
I voted "Changes to Magic/Spells"

.. because the Magic phase is the only phase with serious faults in 8th Ed compared to 7th.
- It does not scale with battle-size or investment into magic by individual generals.
- Bound spells are FUBAR.I actually like the changes to the magic rules in general. There are some things that are a bit skewed (Power Scroll + Purple Sun) but in general it is fine. It does scale with investment in multiple wizards/items but not in battle-size (more channeling attempts, items that give +PD and so on). 2d6 works well where most battles and tournaments take place (2k-3k points). (except for that, just house rule it ;) )
There are some growth pains because the magic system has basically been given a complete overhaul, older army book lores are often sub-par. So armies that can't get access to the BRB lores will usually have a more underwhelming magic phase.


For example:
You can stomp WarBeasts but not Cavalry. Stupid. This implies that a FleshHound is less durable than a ******* pony. My rule would have been that only Cav with Barding was Immune to Stomp. That would have been perfect.I think the stomp thing has nothing to do with the durability but rather the size, it is easier to stomp something that is "small". Flesh Hounds as an example are very durable compared to other hounds but still not very big compared to most cavalry models (remember there is usually something sitting on the "pony" too :p ). They can also be controlled to watch out for the stomp by something a bit more intelligent.

Chris_
04-10-2010, 04:09
Funny, I think this is the one thing that's caused the most problems. Would we have all the complaints about powerscrolls and uberspells, issues with teclis or cupped handed slaan if the old double-1 autofails and miscasts rule were still there?I would rather see that you still need to beat the casting value. This would make IF a bit more balanced. The double-1 autofails I have never been a fan of, even though I see why they put it in.

Lord Inquisitor
04-10-2010, 04:17
It had the advantage of self-limiting the number of dice people would throw at a spell.

Chris_
04-10-2010, 04:29
It had the advantage of self-limiting the number of dice people would throw at a spell.Yes, that is why I could understand the reasoning in having it. I could see something similar in 8th working, maybe the same but only causing it to fail and no miscast. Anyway, the problem is that there are spells like Purple Sun that usually heavily outweighs any negative effects that the miscast might cause.

Zilverug
04-10-2010, 10:12
The new magic system has elements I like and elements I thoroughly hate. The new misfire rules are BAD; I've seen already seen more than enough goblin shaman bombs. There is no reason they couldn't keep the double-1. But I like the remainder of the new magic rules, so I couldn't vote for the magic option.

I also dislike the unlisted:
* new ASF (why?)
* new Magic Resistance (why?)

Eternus
04-10-2010, 11:12
ChrisIronBrow - thanks very much for your comments. I respect a comprehensive response like that. However I don't agree with some of your points.

First, if you think that making a unit less likely to be Steadfast means making it lose 5-6 ranks, how big are the units you are fighting against and how many return attacks are they sacrificing width by going very very deep? Or are they stupendously expensive Hordes?

Second, the downside to an army that clusters around it's General and BSB is that it can be flanked and attacked from multiple sides. Also, there is a downside to Steadfast units being flanked, in that they are attacking back with far fewer attacks than when they are attacked in the front. Hitting them in both flanks prevents your opponent from gaining much by reforming to face one of the units. Also, very large units are not as easy to maneouver around terrain than smaller units, so how can they be more maneouverable, except across an open field?

Third. I do believe that units points costs should be appropriate to their killing power, but I wanted to point out that sometimes that is not the case, and that the best unit to deal with an enemy Steadfast unit is one that can dish out as much punishment as possible while still take hits themselves, and often this means a smaller more expensive unit than a larger unit that model for model are poorer fighters.

Fourth. You are absolutely correct my friend, a Steadfast unit with decent LD will have to be killed almost to a man before they go away, so what we have to do in order to deal with such units successfully is to ensure we deal with them as efficiently as possible - Flank and Rear charges will have no effect on Steadfast, but they will reduce the number of attacks coming back at you, which itself is a good enough reason to attack the Flanks and Rear of a Steadfast unit where possible.

Final point. Hordes of Steadfast Infantry are indeed tricky to take down or beat, but a small resilient unit that can dish out the pain, like the examples I gave of Sword Masters (ok, not so resilient) and Chaos Warriors, deployed on a narrow frontage will negate a chunk of the Horde's attacks from the word go - if a model is not in base contact, then it can't attack, and in a Horde, neither can either of the two models behind it, so how many models is that that are not contributing to the fight? On top of that is the fact that poor troops will cause fewer casualties per model than an elite or better skilled and equipped unit, and so you can weight a combat in your favour by picking your fights carefully where possible.

What I was driving at was that new rules like Steadfast force us to try and think our way round them in order to defeat our opponents. Some tactics will work and some won't, and it may take many months for us to work them all out, but work them out we must. This is just part of the shift of power from super hard elite units and characters to core infantry. Now every unit has it's strengths, rather than some units just being there to make up the numbers. It sounds like large units of Steadfast Infantry are currently getting the negative attention that in 7th was directed against Uber Units, Hydras, HPA etc.

I respect your comments in response to my previous post, which all describe the strengths of Steadfast units and the associated bonuses they get from Generals Ld and BSB re-rolls etc, but could you now see your way to suggesting ways of how to get around the problem?

vorthrax
04-10-2010, 13:54
My number one problem with 8th edition is True Line of Sight because it has the most potential for causing arguments in a game.

a18no
04-10-2010, 15:02
Funny, I think this is the one thing that's caused the most problems. Would we have all the complaints about powerscrolls and uberspells, issues with teclis or cupped handed slaan if the old double-1 autofails and miscasts rule were still there?

Funny, the point here is not the miscast/irreistible: it's the capacity to ignore the miscast. Like many said before: the problem in 7th wasn't the rules, but the army book. I'll bring the same argument for 8th: 8th is perfect, but some army book are overpowered!!!

With big spells, they needed to remove that double 1 auto fail. It was the worst of all. The miscast chart has never been scary in 7th, it was always: "damn my spells is missed". Teclis/slann are too powerfull mage for many army. And the strategy to kill a mage just for 1 spell is good now, many are playing it, but i'm sure it woun't be there for long.

Lord Inquisitor
04-10-2010, 15:37
You'd still see suicide mages throwing max dice at a spell. Indeed, the only reason anyone doesn't throw more than 6 dice at a spell is because the rules don't permit it.

With a system that increased the chance of catastrophic failure with more dice, you wouldn't need an arbitrary 6-dice limit.

The system is just clunky. While miscasts are a real risk for very expensive, army critical mages (greater daemons, slaan, vampires) it doesn't even remotely act as a deterrent for most wizards.

The lack of critical failure for dispelling is even worse, making those armies with heavy dispel power impossible to cast against without IF, because there's no disadvantage to throwing as many dispel dice as possible.

The IF/miscast system is the root of all the issues with the magic phase in 8th.

Eternus
04-10-2010, 15:39
The best change that the 8th Edition magic rules have made in my opinion is that you are no longer compelled to cram as many magic levels into an army as possible. You can compete in the magic phase with a smaller points investment and also include some combat orientated characters as well. This wasn't the case in 7th, in which Magic simply became an arms race, which High Elves and Lizardmen invariably won, though special mention must also go to Tomb Kings and Vamps magic.

Now I stick you with my shiny sword and wave my sparkly stick!

a18no
04-10-2010, 15:56
I vote for a different approch for miscast, like the less you roll, the worst it get, and you apply a malus for each die use for the spell.

A table that go from 0 to 10. 0 is the dead, 10 is a slap on hand

That way, someone who get double 6 on only 2 dices get less chances to blow than somone who get it on 6 dices...

Eternus
05-10-2010, 10:03
As this thread seems to be cooling down a little now, I just wanted to say thanks to all those that voted and commented.

I am happy that my point has been made, which was that when you are only allowed to vote for one rule, it's not necessarily the ones that inspired the most heated debate that come top. I mean, for all the discussion about Steadfast, the power of the new spells, the wacky terrain and random charges, none of those even figure in the top three.

Just goes to show doesn't it. ;)

Thanks again for your participation.

slasher
05-10-2010, 14:35
Has to be always strike in Initiative order without any boosts to Initative (ie Lances on the charge, spears charging)

Samael_Forum
06-10-2010, 20:45
Not a big fan of selling my Ogre army a couple of months before the rules change makes them viable... Other than that I am not a liking the change to hw+s change.

Eternus
07-10-2010, 08:59
Not a big fan of selling my Ogre army a couple of months before the rules change makes them viable... Other than that I am not a liking the change to hw+s change.

I suppose the change to Hand Weapon and Shield depends on whether your army was a heavily armoured one to begin with and were just rock with the extra save bonus, or whether they were a lightly armoured force that rarely got to make a save anyway and if it was it was a save of 6+.

Another example of how the rules have made the game more killy, and prolonged the length of combats to get the most death out of them.

theorox
07-10-2010, 09:05
Yeah, Dwarfs should be MUCH more armoured for example.. Everyone should have a 3+save minimum...or well, maybe all have gromril and options for shields? :)

Theo

Eternus
07-10-2010, 09:45
Yeah, Dwarfs should be MUCH more armoured for example.. Everyone should have a 3+save minimum...or well, maybe all have gromril and options for shields? :)

Theo

But then again a Dwarf Warrior with Hand Weapon, Sheild and Heavy Armour is only 11 points. A bargain for a model with WS4, T4 and LD9. And now they stand a better chance against really big stuff like Dragon Ogres with Great Weapons, thanks to the 'invlunerable' save of 6 for the sheild.

Whether the new HW & shield rule makes a difference or not kinda depends on which armies are fighting. Low strength armies won't struggle as much to kill the enemy, but really strong armies will find it a little bit harder, so things are less extreme and the balance is better. Less Rock Paper Scissors.