PDA

View Full Version : Should Warhammer be less about lists and more about tactics?



ArmyC
12-11-2010, 16:13
I am new to WHFB and fairly new to WH 40k (1.5 years). I played WARMACHINE and Mage Knight before embracing GW.

I find that there was a steep learning curve for me with 40k. The rules were not hard to learn. Tactics also are not hard to learn. Use of terrain to help your army beat the other one on the table, takes some experience.

The hardest part is knowing the match ups. The combat system that GW uses creates mismatches. In order to succeed, a player has to understand target priority, and close combat match ups. So, you have to know all the opposing units, and the equipment that changes things, like FNP, and multiple wounds.

I really hate it when a unit of mine gets chewed up because I picked the wrong unit for them to fight.

Maybe that is the "tactical" side of the game. You just have to know the math behind the action you want to take, and weigh it against other options.

I am too new to fantasy to make a judgement on this, but it seems to me that there should be more ability to affect the game through manuever.

Does anyone else think that more could be done to emphasize table top tactics over list creation, and match ups?

Necromancer2
12-11-2010, 16:20
It's all about matchups. Which unit to target with spells or shooting. Which unit should you charge first.

DeathlessDraich
12-11-2010, 19:55
I am too new to fantasy to make a judgement on this, but it seems to me that there should be more ability to affect the game through manuever.


Yes there is.
Unfortunately many maneouvres available in 7th ed is lost in 8th ed.
In 7th ed - about 80 A4 pages of tactical movement for combat alone used by all armies and about another 20 pages of army specific tactical manouevres.

In 8th ed - about 10 - 30 pages lost and about another 5-10 pages added.

Still early days yet to discover more tactical manoeuvres :)

russellmoo
13-11-2010, 05:27
I think there are certain limits that can be placed on army lists- that can keep the game from becoming- all about which side has a better list and all about finding the right match-ups- Some of these things are comp scores- or limitations on certain army builds- I like how GW in 8th went to percentages but still limited the number of identical units- they should have done the same for characters though- i.e. limit a player to 2 warlords, 3 chieftains, 3 warlock engineers, 3 warrior priests, 3 captains, 3 goblin big bosses-

Also, I've found through hard experience that it is important to have players follow the rules when they deploy, and to ask them if you need to before the game starts to be clear about which unit/character is being placed? Other good questions to ask while your opponent is deploying- How many models in that unit? How many characters, and of what type? How fast do they move? What are their stats?

All of these are questions that any player will answer, and if you find that you are being surprised by what is in a unit when you charge you need to just start asking more questions before game- it also helps if you are playing with fellow players who are dedicated to WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)

Kevlar
13-11-2010, 12:36
Fantasy is a much more difficult game to master since it isn't 99 percent space marine vs space marine, and the other 1% space marine vs inferior army.

Tactically the armies have different strengths and weaknesses. Some are good at shooting, some are good at close combat, some are more defensive and have great armor and toughness. None combine all three like space marines.

Spleen Hammer
13-11-2010, 12:52
While I supper-dig this game, as it was what I cut my Gamer Teeth on back in the mid to late 80s, I can't help but think that FB all boils down to this:

Spend a lot of time to come up with a good list.
Spend time setting up the board and checking out your opponent.
Shuffle your forces forward.
Throw a Metric Butt-Ton of dice around.
Declare the winner.

The finer nuances seem rather fleeting in this incarnation of FB, you know? I love the GW universe, and the system itself, as they seem intuitive to me.

Now, well now it seems that "He who throws the most dice, wins" and this doesn't take a lot of brain-pan power. There's something still lacking.

Gotrek
13-11-2010, 13:10
if that was the way it is why on hell would you have dwarf rangers, beastmen in ambush, vangard movements, scouts, light cavalary and other? tactic acumen will win dispite what you say here.


good lists help win thou but that's part of the prebattle managing process. the only way you can have that level of abstraction you're seeking is if you play chess and even then white have the advantage :P

Slayerthane
13-11-2010, 13:18
I think building overpowered lists or cheesy lists is the easy way out. Tactics and strategy takes too much planning, forethought and brainpower for many gamers, especially younger ones who want a one size fits all army. I tend to play underpowered armies because it forces me to rely more on tactics/strategy than an army that can win on its own regardless. Between good players I agree it is all about matchups, since a good player with a balanced list should be able to beat all cheesy lists played by all but the top players. But this is why I play Warmachine/Hordes, the system is more like a game of chess than WHFB or 40K ever was or will be.

frapermax
13-11-2010, 13:27
Just keep tactics in mind when you build a list. Try to build a list that participates in all phases of the game (movement, magic, shooting, combat). If you depend too heavily on one phase it will become a game of dice rolling. If you have a balanced list, it will become a fun (semi) tactical game.
When building a list I try to imagine a role for every unit I choose or, even better, more than 1 role for every unit (if possible). The fun on the gaming table comes from trying to find a solution for every problem your opponent presents you with. With a balanced list, you will find an answer most of the time. Then on your turn, you return the favor and give your opponent a world of trouble...
fpm

Sexiest_hero
13-11-2010, 13:41
As I build and play 8th edition games, I see they game is more about deployment than spells or anything else. Just like the Armies of old, if you can start the battle on the right foot you'll most likely win. I can't tell you how many times. people will deploy in a huge battle line while i take a flank. It's also about know what spells can do and what your army can do. One battle I simply backed up from a Death mage and his short range spells for 5 turns till a last turn charge by me sealed the game. People don't take Calavery anymore, so my Bloodknights, who can still do a frontal charge, destroy flanks. My black knights don't care about magical terrain, they can move through it! I sike my opponet out with big blocks of skeletons, who are only there to eat catapults.

Spend a lot of time to come up with a good list.
Spend time setting up the board and checking out your opponent.
Shuffle your forces forward.
Throw a Metric Butt-Ton of dice around.
Declare the winner

should read

Out deploy the other army.
Avoid or slow down the hard stuff.
?????
Win.

ArmyC
13-11-2010, 15:08
Well perhaps I am just new and these things will come with time. I am 50 years old, and a Math teacher by profession, so it isn't like I can't figure things out. I don't have the time to play game after game to match up with the experience of some of the guys I play against that just graduated college and minored in Warhammer. They have seen so many situations that they can predict the results of fights before the 1st swing. I am a West Point grad and spent 5 years as an artillery officer. I advised Battalion Commanders on tactics. It pisses me off when I don't see a melee defeat coming. I also play Eldar and High Elves vs mostly Space Marine variations and Dwarves/WoC so I have set a high bar for myself. I played Flames of War a good bit. That game is pretty good about tactics being more important than lists IMHO. The problem was all the battles started to feel the same. When units have a WIDE variety of abilities and ways to modify those abilities via equipment or magic, battles don't get old. All warfare is based on finding the enemy and killing him with fire or melee. For the experienced player who starts to find the games similar, try more scenarios and campaigns.

The answer to my dilemma is going to come from pissing my wife off even more while I spend time playtesting ideas in the garage. One has to keep their priorities straight though.

Eternus
13-11-2010, 15:32
The key is understanding how 8th differs from 7th in what you have to achieve. 7th, most of the time, involved a single type of battle, with linear and predictable outcomes, and so lent itself well to strictly competative play.

Now things are far less predictable, killing alone won't win every game anymore, and the result is people don't know what they are trying to achieve. I think the key to winning is dictating the flow of the game, having your units do what you want them to do while preventing your opponent from doing the same. If you can force your opponent to do things they really don't want to do, then there are your battle winning tactics right there.

DeathlessDraich
13-11-2010, 15:38
As I build and play 8th edition games, I see they game is more about deployment than spells or anything else.

This is an oversimplification - there is more :)


Spend a lot of time to come up with a good list.
Spend time setting up the board and checking out your opponent.
Shuffle your forces forward.
Throw a Metric Butt-Ton of dice around.
Declare the winner

should read

Out deploy the other army.
Avoid or slow down the hard stuff.
?????
Win.

There are a great many more tactical manoeuvres - see below


I am a West Point grad and spent 5 years as an artillery officer. I advised Battalion Commanders on tactics. It pisses me off when I don't see a melee defeat coming. I also play Eldar and High Elves vs mostly Space Marine variations and Dwarves/WoC so I have set a high bar for myself. I played Flames of War a good bit. That game is pretty good about tactics being more important than lists IMHO. The problem was all the battles started to feel the same. When units have a WIDE variety of abilities and ways to modify those abilities via equipment or magic, battles don't get old. All warfare is based on finding the enemy and killing him with fire or melee. For the experienced player who starts to find the games similar, try more scenarios and campaigns.

The answer to my dilemma is going to come from pissing my wife off even more while I spend time playtesting ideas in the garage. One has to keep their priorities straight though.

Using real life tactics in Warhammer doesn't work unfortunately.
But make no mistake, Fantasy is a tactical game. Working out deadly combos of magic & magic items is only a small facet, over emphasised by the novice.
Considering combat alone - Anvil & hammer is mentioned a lot but again is 1 small aspect. There is much more. Diverting charges, how to ambush, creating ambushes, setting up a flank charge, winning a flank, anchoring a flank, - I could go on and on but you've got the general idea.
A fav. concotion of mine in 7th ed is the 'Barn dance' which unfortunately is far less effective in 8the ed or has to be modified

Kevlar
13-11-2010, 16:28
Just keep tactics in mind when you build a list. Try to build a list that participates in all phases of the game (movement, magic, shooting, combat). If you depend too heavily on one phase it will become a game of dice rolling. If you have a balanced list, it will become a fun (semi) tactical game.

Actually I think this is terrible advice for most armies. To me you either want to participate in close combat, or avoid it. Trying to do both is going to weaken the other aspects of your army.

If you build an army with some shooting and some close combat units you won't have enough shooting to cause panic tests or to obliterate units. You also won't have enough close combat units to take on a real close combat army.

For a competitive army you need to focus on either shooting or close combat, and select auxiliary troops that compliment your main force.

If I build a close combat skaven army then I am taking the storm banner to cut down on enemy missle fire, skirmishers to harass enemy shooting units, and some small fast units to rush across the board and tie up more shooting and war machine units. I will probably secure the center of my army with a furnace, and have supporting combat blocks on either side to flank the enemy, usually storm vermin or rat ogres.

If I build a shooting skaven army I am taking globadiers, jezzails, cannons, and a screaming bell. I will stick slaves in front of me to slow down the enemy and I will take supporting units like gutter runners and engineers to harass the enemy as he approaches.

If I take a balanced skaven army I can't do enough in any phase since I don't have enough points to spread around into all of the effective units I need to win. So more often than not I lose.

theorox
13-11-2010, 16:31
@ OP: How can we possibly know, we aren't done exploring 8th yet! :D


Theo

Leth Von Lucifuge
13-11-2010, 19:46
I dunno about not being able to balance your lists. Particularly with skaven since even the good melee or missile troops are so cheap. You dont need to cause panic tests with shooting since most armies have battle standards. Shooting can weaken ranks against a powerful combat force giving your own troops the edge, or it can destroy flankers, monsters and other missile troops.

The above is an example of pregame tactical thinking. You need an army that can deal with as many situations as you can think of, and you need to be able to create those favourable situations during the game.

Eternus
13-11-2010, 21:52
I dunno about not being able to balance your lists. Particularly with skaven since even the good melee or missile troops are so cheap. You dont need to cause panic tests with shooting since most armies have battle standards. Shooting can weaken ranks against a powerful combat force giving your own troops the edge, or it can destroy flankers, monsters and other missile troops.

The above is an example of pregame tactical thinking. You need an army that can deal with as many situations as you can think of, and you need to be able to create those favourable situations during the game.

And if you are playing using the scenarios from the BRB without knowing which one you'll be playing in advance, then your list will need to have a degree of flexibility. This is probably the thing I like most about 8th - a list is no longer chosen with pure killing power in mind, and I hope the variety of scenarios does the same for Fantasy as they did for 40K

ArmyC
13-11-2010, 22:41
40k BRB should have included the Spearhead scenarios. Even if the Spearhead rules and formations came later, the scenarios are really cool and flipping the board sideways creates a ton of variety.

I would love to see some examples of all the tactics mentioned above. I take no pride in crushing an opponent with mathhammer, but I love faking him out by manuever and setting the traps and ambushes mentioned above. I wish I saw more battle reports talk about how manuever turned the tide, but 90% speak about running up and my bad a$$ unit kicked enemy tail.

Grey Mage
14-11-2010, 06:45
I am new to WHFB and fairly new to WH 40k (1.5 years). I played WARMACHINE and Mage Knight before embracing GW.

I find that there was a steep learning curve for me with 40k. The rules were not hard to learn. Tactics also are not hard to learn. Use of terrain to help your army beat the other one on the table, takes some experience.

The hardest part is knowing the match ups. The combat system that GW uses creates mismatches. In order to succeed, a player has to understand target priority, and close combat match ups. So, you have to know all the opposing units, and the equipment that changes things, like FNP, and multiple wounds.

I really hate it when a unit of mine gets chewed up because I picked the wrong unit for them to fight.

Maybe that is the "tactical" side of the game. You just have to know the math behind the action you want to take, and weigh it against other options.

I am too new to fantasy to make a judgement on this, but it seems to me that there should be more ability to affect the game through manuever.

Does anyone else think that more could be done to emphasize table top tactics over list creation, and match ups?
Those matchups provide scope for all the other things youve mentioned- terrain, positioning, deployment, target priority.... these are all parts of real honest to god tactics.

In Warmachine- its important to know whats strong enough to damage a warjack, and what the enemies ranges are, and wich units to use to spearhead your assault against what types of armies.

In WWII it was important to know what tank you were fighting, so you knew where its weak armor was, what kind of traps to lead it into, and just how screwed you might be.

So.... whats your complaint? That fantasy doesnt have as much movement in it as 40k? Well thats true enough, though for many fantasy players its been a point of pride- a general slower speed means ever inch counts. Of course, thats all different now that 8th edition is here. Its a newer, dumber, game. Some of us are happier about that than others.

No matter what game you play, what military your in, or whatever other arena you want to compete in.... knowing your foe is key to victory.

theorox
14-11-2010, 08:19
At least its more tactical and less about lists than 7th were. You couldn't loose if you went all Elite...

Theo

Eternus
14-11-2010, 09:00
40k BRB should have included the Spearhead scenarios. Even if the Spearhead rules and formations came later, the scenarios are really cool and flipping the board sideways creates a ton of variety.

I would love to see some examples of all the tactics mentioned above. I take no pride in crushing an opponent with mathhammer, but I love faking him out by manuever and setting the traps and ambushes mentioned above. I wish I saw more battle reports talk about how manuever turned the tide, but 90% speak about running up and my bad a$$ unit kicked enemy tail.


At least its more tactical and less about lists than 7th were. You couldn't loose if you went all Elite...

Theo

Remember though, whichever part of the BRB you read, 8th is all about how the rules interlock with each other. Some rules seem strange or overpowerful on their own, like Steadfast, but it's when you combine it with other rules, like no partial hits, make way and fighting in initiative order etc that it seems a little more balanced.

You do need sufficiently powerful units to be able to go toe to toe in a fight with enemy units, but that unit needs to be supported by other units, and you want still further units to do other jobs like sweep down a flank and engage the enemy missile troops and warmachines, or charge round for a flank or rear charge.

Loads of people have complained about needing 2 ranks of cavalry to negate enemy ranks, so there's no point in flank and rear charges - what about the fact that you get an extra +1 or + 2 bonus, or that there are far fewer attacks coming back at you when attacking the flank or rear, and the enemy don't get a shield ward save when fighting to the flank or rear? There is a lot of new stuff to consider, and people who don't take advantage of all the new opportunities will find the game a little subdued.

Jervis got it right when he said that combined arms is the order of the day, especially when you don't know what scenario you'll be playing in advance. Many of the guys at my local club have said that they are not fans of 8th so far, but they aren't really playing 8th, they're using the rules in the 8th book to play 7th, and it isn't working - no special terrain, no new scenarios, just line up and fight - no wonder it doesn't seem right to them.

Mystic_Weasel
14-11-2010, 09:57
Jervis got it right when he said that combined arms is the order of the day, especially when you don't know what scenario you'll be playing in advance. Many of the guys at my local club have said that they are not fans of 8th so far, but they aren't really playing 8th, they're using the rules in the 8th book to play 7th, and it isn't working - no special terrain, no new scenarios, just line up and fight - no wonder it doesn't seem right to them.

I agree totally, Been in warhammer for many years and really to play this edition properly you have to forget the past. Some people are finding that harder than others.
You need random scenarios, you need lots of lovely terrain, add to that random terrain effects.
If your just going to play battle line every single time, with a normal tree, and normal hill of course the system will get boring quickly!
Charging down hills for bonuses, catching big units in forests to negate steadfast.
Theres plenty of fun to be had here, even without combined/flank charges etc.

Da GoBBo
14-11-2010, 10:18
Does anyone else think that more could be done to emphasize table top tactics over list creation, and match ups?

The word you are looking for is 'synergy', a concept you, as a warmachine player where it is all about building a gang around your warlocks powers, should be familiar with. In warhammer it is not so much about combining powers, though that does obviously help, but about how each element of your army controls the movement phase. Execution changed hugely between 7th and 8th, but the concept itself remains. We are still figuring out how much this has changed. Warhammer is about setting up traps, luring or forcing your opponent into it, avoiding your opponent escape said trap and avoid your opponent hindering you from closing the trap; on top of that your army needs to be able to do just that versus any army it faces. This is no small task so yes, you need to think things through before hand. You can't just bring along a pile of models and expect it to face off against whatever it faces; each unit has a specific task versus a specific army, and a different job versus another kind of army.

For instance, when a unit of average skill is about to be engaged by a (more expensive) unit of übersoldiers, you should have some backup near (in the form of a chariot or a flanking unit for instance). At the same time that opponent should have some unit(s) ready that stop you from assisting your unit, while you on your turn should stop just that from hapening. Versus some armies my wolfriders will block the path of any incomming assisting unit(s), seeing them dead most of the time, while at other times they might perform a rear charge, or snipe ratlingguns. The one thing I can't do, however, is have em wander around doing nothing.

Some units are meant to die, some are meant to hit things (and die some of the time), some units are meant just be present and be merely doing that control the opponents movement. All in all that is what the game is about; forcing your opponent into doing something not planned for while avoiding being lured into the same trap. Listbuilding is obviously a part of that, perhaps even a major part, but as the same list is supposed to be able to face off against the greatest amount of types of armies, it is by no means superior to executing a (most of the time improvised) battleplan on the table. Any idiot with a terrific army can loose to a true commander with an inferior army, just because of the fact he doesn´t know how to use it. I would like to bring the siege of Leningrad to mind, a 'matchup' the Germans never should have engaged in for several reasons and a reference I hope you, as an officer, can appriciate. Funny thing is that the listbuilder ('behind the desk officer ' whotname -von Leeb?-) lost to the fieldcommander (Popov).

I hope this answers your question :)

edit: For some reason GW has an element of imbalance in every edition they release in the form of powercreep in the army books. I firmly believe this is done on purpose in order to sell more miniature, but a lot of people disagree and think this coincidental. Whichever way you want it, it is there and in my opinion it us up to us to avoid (ab)use of said powercreep and yes, this means I think some armybooks should not be used to their full extend, an opinion frowned upon by many.

It is an opinion by which my above description of the game holds true though. A game with two balanced armies makes for a much more exciting game than game where one player brings all the cheese it can find. Allthough it is in a way fun and exciting to have those players bite the dust, I can't honestly say I truely like to play such list and the people that use em. The game get's messed up because of it, that is why it is called an unbalanced list.

Anyway, the game does indeed become more about listbuilding when players do cheese out there armybooks. If your truely think the game is mostly about listbuilding over tabletop strategy, perhaps this is what is happening in your gamingenvironment. Have a talk about it with the people you play with, or just play the people that like balanced games ... Or move along with the flow of cheese, but I am under the impression that is not how you like it.

Eternus
14-11-2010, 12:33
edit: For some reason GW has an element of imbalance in every edition they release in the form of powercreep in the army books. I firmly believe this is done on purpose in order to sell more miniature, but a lot of people disagree and think this coincidental. Whichever way you want it, it is there and in my opinion it us up to us to avoid (ab)use of said powercreep and yes, this means I think some armybooks should not be used to their full extend, an opinion frowned upon by many.

It is an opinion by which my above description of the game holds true though. A game with two balanced armies makes for a much more exciting game than game where one player brings all the cheese it can find. Allthough it is in a way fun and exciting to have those players bite the dust, I can't honestly say I truely like to play such list and the people that use em. The game get's messed up because of it, that is why it is called an unbalanced list.

Anyway, the game does indeed become more about listbuilding when players do cheese out there armybooks. If your truely think the game is mostly about listbuilding over tabletop strategy, perhaps this is what is happening in your gamingenvironment. Have a talk about it with the people you play with, or just play the people that like balanced games ... Or move along with the flow of cheese, but I am under the impression that is not how you like it.

I have to keep asking myself 'If gamers were better able to regulate their desire to choose the most powerful ubercheesy list possible, would we even have an 8th edition?' So much of 8th is geared towards forcing people to pick more balanced lists and curbing the power of certain really powerful unit and army builds, and it's a shame this even became necessary, but I'm glad they did it given the state of the game at the end of 7th.

russellmoo
15-11-2010, 05:39
Army C- After reading the rest of the thread here are some thoughts

First- if you are playing High Elves that might actually be part of your conundrum. Effective HE armies all look the same (Teclis, or other magic heavy, Close combat lists)

This is for two reasons- first they have very little in the way of warmachines, no monstrous infantry, no full units of flyers (only monsters or warbeasts that fly), they have two shooting options- bows or bolt throwers- their core infantry can take spears, or bows or both- it is widely agreed that their Fast cavalry is poor, as well as their skirmishers- the lack of all of these things limit HE tactics-
2- High elves are good at- magic, close combat, shooting, moving- while the only thing they suck at is being able to take a hit-

This means that the army itself ends up being very one-dimensional and hence it makes for less tactical games- Also, it is generally accepted that HE are middle tiered in 8th-

My suggestion would be to try a different army first before giving up on WFB- also- try playing against a wider variety of armies- both Dwarfs and WoC are a bit more powerful than the HE.

Some of the armies which have a much wider choice of playable armies are-
Skaven, Dwarfs, Empire, Orcs, Demons- Any of these armies have several different yet effective army list compositions- whereas HE can play a Teclis list-

Regarding tactics in WFB- I think the best way to look at it and plan is the idea that to win in WFB you need to dominate two phases of the game- So if you can outmaneuver and out shoot your opponent you tend to win, if your magic is superior, and you can fight better in CC, you tend to win- looking at the game this way can be helpful in developing a list which is much more tactical and fun to play-

Wakerofgods
15-11-2010, 05:42
I don't think warhammer should be more about manuvering.

I think it is already about this (and deployment!!!) to a large degree. IMO any more influence from tactics then we currently have takes warhammer in a bad direction and will lead to even casual games being more competitive.

The exception is the current magic phase (/lores) which IMO can burn in hell.

bert n ernie
15-11-2010, 08:56
@Kevlar,
your point is a fair one when looking at Skaven (although even my most combat orientated list needs some shooting, as I can't deal with every unit in combat) but a lot of armies need a balance to be able to deal with the multiple types of threats that they are likely to come up against.

I think that a 'fully powered' magic phase, or an overabundance of warmachines can make the game into a series of dice rolling, but I have been finding that I can play as tactically as I did in the previous edition, if I choose that route. I still won't beat the most tricked out list, but I'd rather that than be playing a fairly dull game when my magic rock beats their scissors.

Da GoBBo
15-11-2010, 09:32
So much of 8th is geared towards forcing people to pick more balanced lists and curbing the power of certain really powerful unit and army builds, and it's a shame this even became necessary, but I'm glad they did it given the state of the game at the end of 7th.

To be honest there was nothing wrong with 7th edition; there was most definitly something wrong with all the armybooks after O&G. Lets see how 8th will evolve, lots of things can go wrong.


This means that the army itself ends up being very one-dimensional and hence it makes for less tactical games- Also, it is generally accepted that HE are middle tiered in 8th-

My suggestion would be to try a different army first before giving up on WFB- also- try playing against a wider variety of armies- both Dwarfs and WoC are a bit more powerful than the HE.

WTF kind of advice is this?!? "buy a new army". ... Are you a GW employee? ;) ... Did you even read his question? He is asking after the importance of a specific part of the game, putting together an army, which is a valid question. In Warmachine most compositions can be made to work, it's most about how to employ the warlocks powers on the battlefield, but most units can be made to work with most warlocks. In Warhammer this is just not the case. You formulate a battleplan, form an army around it and try to execute it. Some armies can execute a lot of different kinds of battleplans, some can not. Apparently High elves only have one method to approach a battlefield? I refuse to believe that, but it is also beside the point. Even if that is the case, you still have to make things come together on the battlefield. ArmyC is correct when he says listbuilding is important. Compared to Warmachine, Warhammer just isn't as flexible ones your list is created. You create a list with a specific plan in mind. Warmachine just isn't that game; not to the extend found in Warhammer.

Warhammer does become more flexible with balanced lists though, as a balanced list is made to deal with the largest amount of possible situations it will face. I am glad we all play balanced list in my group. It takes a while, but eventually we have each found our list and can stick to for a long time. Even so all games can and will be really different, as there still is the variable of terrain, creating a different battlefield that needs a different approach.

Eternus
15-11-2010, 10:20
To be honest there was nothing wrong with 7th edition; there was most definitly something wrong with all the armybooks after O&G. Lets see how 8th will evolve, lots of things can go wrong.


I agree, but just to clarify, although I thought the rules were pretty sound, the degree to which armies could be tailored to max out in certain areas of the game coupled with the way some army books supported this kind of play made the ultimate list the focus of the game rather than having fun playing the game. For me, players could exert a little too much control over the game. I like the uncertaintly that has been introduced by some of the changes we have seen in 8th.

Now lists are important, some previously ignored units have a place in our armies, and having a clear idea of how you wish your army to operate is important, but we have to be more flexible as players - some of the rigidity is gone, because the game is less predictable, especially in certain areas like magic.

logan054
15-11-2010, 12:16
if that was the way it is why on hell would you have dwarf rangers, beastmen in ambush, vangard movements, scouts, light cavalary and other? tactic acumen will win dispite what you say here.


good lists help win thou but that's part of the prebattle managing process. the only way you can have that level of abstraction you're seeking is if you play chess and even then white have the advantage :P

Good tactics will only help you to a point, at the end of the day if you have a weak list you are playing a up hill struggle from the get go, this dosn't bother me personally but i accept this. The problem with the way warhammer has these days you have just far to much emphasis on army building, you seriously have to use the latest unit in your army a lot of time or the newest special character (depending on army). If you didn't have such underpowered and over powered units then I don't think the game would have such a high emphasis on list building.


To be honest there was nothing wrong with 7th edition; there was most definitly something wrong with all the armybooks after O&G. Lets see how 8th will evolve, lots of things can go wrong.

7th is not the perfect edition people seem to remember while I agree that the army have and always will be a issue the core rules are still part of the reason why armies up like they did, magic was still a big problem, with 8th the only real problem is the lores, with 7th you had to go all or nothing, the whole mechanic how combat worked, this pretty much boiled down to I had to get the charge, wipe out you front rank and win, the amount if times I lost to my mates VC simply because his character killed my front rank of models. I do think the other problem with warhammer is the players, so many people have to win, it don't matter how but they have to win. Its not just that but the amount of people that don't even uses missions, its just stupid, its hardly as if the are a bad thing, interesting because I don't see this with 40k, for some reason warhammer players just seem to like walking towards each other rolling dice and then complaining about the lack of tactics???? The mind boggles!

I don't think the internet helps a lot of times, especially with list building, if you build a army, post it on any forum as soon as you try anything remotely different to what is the established code of army building you are usually told to conform, I think my best experience of this is after a posting a list (not here) and explaining how I have this cool model I want to use I am promptly told not to use it because some guy used it once and died??? how on earth does such things help create tactical diversity in warhammer.

oldschoolmonk
15-11-2010, 14:12
There are tactics in 8E, and most tactics revolve around the movement phase instead of the other phases. The only key strategy of the other phases past list creation is how they influence your movement - if they are out magicing and shooting you then you must advance, and learn to disable their counter attack (and plan ahead they can make you lose any single unit, so not to rely on a straight fight).

When building a list you can focus on 2-3 phases of the game, and this will change your tactical decisions. Take for example a Bret army that takes 2 Trebs, some minor magic, and the rest in knights. He will apply strategy in game by avoiding half the table and trying to shove 80% of his points into 2 combats against 30-50% of your points, while shelling the rest of them a safe distance away from his knights. Thats tactical, and it does rely on his list creation and deployment, in the same manner of play as a 40k game.

If you really want to affect the game with maneuvering then try an army that can excel in the movement phase. Chaos can, for example, by using warhounds to redirect charges and open up flanks. So can empire, as they can take a 40pt unit of Free Company that allows them to take a big hit and take their combat units away from your main line for another turn or two. Units that tarpit do this as well, such as War Altars, buses of cheap troops, and crown of command lords.

Its my opinion that less powerful lists are much more viable in this edition of warhammer. There are a large number of units that are just as viable as others in their slots. I could probably take an assortment of random models I like in the dark elf range (and have) and come away with a very viable army. Now if I chose not to run a Sorceress lord I may have more problems, but there is no way that I am crippled for not taking any chariots/cavalry/corsairs/witches/bolt throwers. I can ignore a full 1/3 of the book and do just fine. Likewise my empire are doing well with few handgunners and a church of Sigmar style theme. Just like WoC doesn't need MoT warriors with shields and Khorne Halberdiers to win - they can run a Nurgle army and still do just fine. Do you have the chance to be destroyed by some gross list? Maybe, but I still believe 8E has gone a long way to balance out the ability to take armies you like and still win.

Midloo
15-11-2010, 17:33
Absolutely agree with the OP. I play Warhammer because it's a big and fun looking world with tons of great miniatures. When I want a highly tactical game with interesting considerations and maneuvers, I go with Warmaster or Epic Armageddon.

Noght
16-11-2010, 18:47
Let me preface this by saying that I haven't played Warhammer since the mid 90's and just got back into it again with 8th Edition.

The ONLY way this works is using Scenerios at the very minimum. Terrain pieces are fine, terrain effects are just meh....

If you are forced to build an army list that can play every scenerio then that solves half of the problem. If you know that you are only going to play Battleline, line em up and fight, that changes army composition.

I played in a tourney last weekend, Posted in Battle Reports under Empire 1250 Tourney, and brought 2 blocks of infantry, 2 shooty units (10 shots each), 2 war machines, 2 Lords (with little magic) and 2 Heroes (a Priest and BSB). I knew we were playing Scenerios so I tried to plan for all 6.

We ended up not playing Battleline (good because the cheese lists win this usually), Watchtower, or Dawn Attack (random set up).

The first match was against Beastmen, I elected to ignore the flank attacking Harpies and Minotaurs willing to sacrifice most of my army (and the 3 fortitude points, he needed 4 because I decided to take another banner) to go after his General and Gor unit and the 3 Fortitude points needed for win. Had the game gone one more turn he would have killed my Crossbows, Swordsmen, Wizard Lord, BSB, Cannon and Mortar and I would have one by killing his General and Gor Herd winning the Scenerio.

The 2nd Match, Meeting Engagement, with it's reinforcement rules allowed me to get space between his tough units (Saurus) and take his units out piecemeal, Skinks first, then each seperate Saurus unit. Had he waited just a bit, both of his Saurus units hit the same time and rolled me.

The 3rd Match, Battle for the Pass, vs Warriors of Chaos enabled me to ignore his Hand to Hand combat monster army list and kill enough and play defense until time expired with a decisive win. In a Battleline he crushes me. Had he built one less unit of Chaos Warriors and added some speed maybe he wins or draws. No doubt his "Listhammer" army would have destroyed mine, he had more points in magic banners than I had all of Magic.

You need to have an adaptable army would be my answer, playing "Battleline" always with 8th edition favors the cheap, horde army lists.

Just my thoughts.
Noght

Jericho
16-11-2010, 22:21
Excellent post, Nought. I like your style, especially the ballsy decision to go after the General + Gors at the risk of losing everything :D

Moderate scenery and playing the better scenarios is a great way to bring out the tactics. I have a few friends getting into podcasts etc. and this sort of discussion is proving to be extremely contraversial.

Granted that's because they are giving the ETC rules, and the atmosphere of stark terror surrounding #6 spells on the internet, a solid thrashing in the process ;)