PDA

View Full Version : Changes you've never been able to get over...



vinush
02-08-2011, 19:49
As army books update and editions change there are tweaks made to units/characters/background/etc.

And then somewhere amidst all of this massive upheaval that you somehow manage to cope with (let's be honest, most of us are rabid fan boys to our armies and a load of people always moan over whatever happens but keep on going regardless) there's one little thing that's changed that you can never quite get over, no matter how much better everything else is.

So I thought we could get a list of things that we all miss while I'm on a massive reminiscence trip down memory lane.

Mine is what they did to Necromancers.

I can almost live with the changes they made to Zombies (although they are crap now) and the fact that they've changed the fluff on ghouls to make them rank up in units rather than being a shambling mass of degenerate humans corrupted by eating corpse flesh.

However, the fact that they have now changed Necromancers to less than second rate characters really gets my goat. Necromancers are powerful wizards able to bend the will of the dead to their own ends, not the dross that we see in the VC army book we're forced to use nowadays.

So, what else is out there?

THE \/ince

Kaiserdean
02-08-2011, 19:58
I still call my opponent's inability to stop a spell, "Total Power" and not, "Irresistible."

I always will.

snottlebocket
02-08-2011, 20:10
I kinda agree with the necromancer thing. They were incredibly dramatic characters with complex motivations for trying to gain mastery over death and invariably tragic endings as dark magic twists them into something debased.

Now we just have the cheesiest of stereotypical vampires.

Rick Blaine
02-08-2011, 20:10
Tomb King magic phase.

Spoik
02-08-2011, 20:18
I really, really miss...

A variety of monsters available to all armies.

Allies and mercenaries.

Giant leeches.

Actually, it seems like Storm of magic might solve two of those problems...

spikedog
02-08-2011, 20:18
The loss of the faction/type lists at the back of each of the army books. I thought these were great fun and really helped those of us that liked running themed lists.

Kal Taron
02-08-2011, 20:25
8th edition. I wouldnt' say never but it will take a long time to get over it. A new armybook might help though but I'm not too optimistic.

WarSmith7
02-08-2011, 20:26
The division of chaos into three seperate armies.

CrystalSphere
02-08-2011, 20:27
Steadfast, i think the game was way better without that rule. These days you never see elite infantry as anvils, but instead only lots of cheap units in 5 ranks wide. I donīt like the idea of some goblins holding off a powerful unit indefinitely, no matter how many of them there are. I prefered when the importance of anvil units was based around how much damage they can mitigate and building up static combat resolution, and not only in how cheap each miniature is. I also dislike how flanking and rearcharging lost a great deal of meaning.

Djekar
02-08-2011, 21:00
The division of chaos into three seperate armies.

+1 to this. I bemoan it every time I sit down to draw up a WoC list or look longingly at my wife's beastmen.

TheDarkDuke
02-08-2011, 21:02
Warriors of Chaos. They got rid of tzeentch warrior wizards and added you always have to challenge garbage. Those along with removal of demons and beasts actually made me stop that army entirely. Which is sad because i like most the models but absolutely hate the rules. I'm sure theres more but none as bad as that for me, although i do agree that what they did to necromancers sucks as well.

The Low King
02-08-2011, 21:02
you dont like the idea that a horde of 100 goblins would swarm 10 swordmasters, confident in their numbers?

i miss the old dwarf runes that could autowound...

i miss the flame cannon.....

i miss my dwarfs being able to strike first....

vinush
02-08-2011, 21:04
There's so much love for Necromancers! Makes my black heart sing, it does!

Here's hoping when they do a new VC army book that things change.

THE \/ince

Voss
02-08-2011, 21:15
Psychology as irrelevant. First by ditching the panic checks for being flanked or rear charged, dropping the panic tests for friendly units being broken, immunity to tests if the unit is already engaged and then rerolls and stubborn handed out like candy.

Pre-industrial warfare depended on flanking, breaking and morale (industrial warfare does of course as well, but the mechanics of small units are quite different to large blocks of troops). No-one fights to the last man like complete and utter ******.
The rejection of psychology felt like they tore large chunks of the game away.


I also didn't like the marginalization of necromancers in favor of the fad-fang-boys. Necromancers have a lot of story potential, whether they fell or were pushed into darkness. Since vampires have been pushed from monster to 'Aw, poor little powerful, immortal emo', they lack anything resembling story or substance.

loveless
02-08-2011, 21:16
-Necromancers with actual spells. I miss having those level 2's that didn't have to pay for combat prowess like Vamps do. I'm not too terribly annoyed by the loss of the Master Necromancer (I usually went with a Necrarch Count anyway), but I see no real reason not to have them as well.

-Lack of Chaos mixing. I miss having the option to field Daemonettes alongside Warriors in "official" games.

-Am I crazy, or was there once a Chaos item that had a chance to turn the character into a Spawn if he fled or lost combat? If I'm not crazy, then I miss that item.

Gaargod
02-08-2011, 21:27
-Am I crazy, or was there once a Chaos item that had a chance to turn the character into a Spawn if he fled or lost combat? If I'm not crazy, then I miss that item.

Gaze of the Gods, i believe. Was a cheap 4+ ward (30pts), but if you ever fled (i think for any reason, not just combat!), you immediately turned into a spawn. Great item.



I'd second the vote for psychology. Some things were over the top (fear autobreaking), but its now just useless...

snottlebocket
02-08-2011, 21:27
-Am I crazy, or was there once a Chaos item that had a chance to turn the character into a Spawn if he fled or lost combat? If I'm not crazy, then I miss that item.

At first it was a special character with that rule (arbaal the undefeated), later on they applied the rule to a magic item.

sasheep
02-08-2011, 21:30
The biggest annoyance is fear being weakened. Adn next up would be the changes to necromancers. By the looks of things, that seems to be the most common annoyance.

Sexiest_hero
02-08-2011, 21:31
The Old Necromancer lord, My reason for starting WHFB. Join us, or die and join us anyways. I love a tragic bad guy, They ruied 40k chaos lord fluff as well.

decker_cky
02-08-2011, 21:32
Pretty forgiving too....only applied if you were fleeing in your magic phase (almost always meaning you failed to rally.

Mixing chaos for sure is the big one.

T10
02-08-2011, 21:43
I used to enjoy the complexities of the 6th ed. Chaos list: that the type of General defined the army in terms of Mortal, Beast and Daemon, and that the Marks had deeper impact, what with the inter-god animosity and rivalry.

Sure, the new books are all "good" in the sense that the player is free to mix and match within the compartementalized pool of troops and options. But I feel the background was sacrifieced on the altar of munchkin-gratification

Beastlord
02-08-2011, 21:43
Another one here for the de-chaosing of chaos. I'll never get over that, and I'm sticking to my 6th ed armybooks for the most part. If my opponent doesn't like a real chaos horde, well I'll play another army, but I'll never use one these stupid 7th ed lists... Absolute nonsense.

Godgolden
02-08-2011, 21:58
Yeah the Gaze of the gods magic item, cheap 4+ ward and if you flee (and fail to rally) you're spawn meat pal!

That and 'Sophoric musk', having a always strike first daemon prince that halves the enmy inititive/WS? (so he does indeed, always go first, back in the day) now however it forces an extra D6 for moral tests, discarding the lowerst (i think), poor, very poor and not cheap either.

i dont however miss the ineffective infantry.

The Anarchist
02-08-2011, 22:44
The lack of more than 8 magical items is a personal gripe atm thats not been going away, one i hope dosn't continue for too long!

though i love that some things such as Zoats and CD seem to be sneaking back. thats a lass i didn't really get over and now no longer need to

decker_cky
02-08-2011, 22:47
Yeah...old chaos got a lot of flak for being 3 armies that mix, when really you had a terrible army (daemons), a mostly overpriced army with a few good choices (mortals) and a middle of the pack army (beastmen) being mixed. Although a few builds were worth complaining about (3+ ward vs shooting/magic dragon), there was never really anything that consistently placed in the tops at tourneys.

Ideally a chaos list would allow you to mix mortals, beastmen and daemons, but would reward the army for focusing on a race, and would allow mixing of marks, but provide a bonus for one-mark armies. Balance that, and you have ultimate homerun army book IMO.

kafrique
02-08-2011, 22:54
One quibble with the OP, why do you think ghouls specifically deserve to be skirmishers? I mean, it's not like zombies, clanrats, or orc boyz fight in organized, ranked blocks but none of them are skirmishers. IMO, skirmishers should be reserved for troops with experience or training in fighting in fluid formation.

Jolly Puggles
02-08-2011, 22:54
It's Necromancers for me too...way back when it was "Warhammer Armies: Undead", I wanted to collect an army of shambling "fleshies" and "bonies" led by a powerful Necromancer. I held off for a bit and the next thing I knew, there were two "undead" armies and neither of them could be led by a straight up Necromancer!

It always struck me as odd, especially when the biggest and baddest Undead guy of them all held the title of The Great Necromancer...hell, he practically invented the art of Necromancy and the two current "undead" armies and yet those that would follow in his mighty footsteps are relegated to being pawns of a bunch of blood-suckers. What gives?

gd09garett
02-08-2011, 22:54
The Empire becoming mono race and mono nation. I want my halflings and Kislevities back. The Dwarfs and Ogres were nice, but the Winged Lancers and War Wagon were cool, and the halfling hot pot was the best war machine ever. Plus, it really highlighted the desperate state of the world when halflings were willing to part with food :).

vinush
02-08-2011, 22:58
Because thats how they used be. Since at least 5th edition army book they've been skirmish troops. That's as long as I can really remember, I have a vague feeling they were ranked in 4th, but I can't remember anything skirmishing back then.

macejase
03-08-2011, 00:17
I agree with the split of chaos, I much preferred it when it was Hordes of Chaos and Beasts of Chaos, and you could mix elements of both. I actually played Chaos back then.

I can't understand why a mortal chaos champion can't lead an army of men with beastmen for support and a few summoned packs of daemons anymore. And as for the whole "all the gods working together" thing, that pretty much goes against most of what they had written before about the chaos gods. I would much rather be allowed an all Slaanesh army with mortals and daemons in it, than stick to daemons but mix the marks within the army.

It just seems so wrong.



And another vote on necromancers too. I only started fantasy 10 years ago and not with undead, so I never played them, but I can still tell they were better back then.

Feefait
03-08-2011, 00:59
I really, really miss...

A variety of monsters available to all armies.

Allies and mercenaries.

Giant leeches.

Actually, it seems like Storm of magic might solve two of those problems...

Woooohooo so glad I am not alone in leeches. It was awesome to have a unit of them in my old slang army that was already amphibious and then throw down a river or two for terrain and summon a magic bog in the middle of the table. Lol and even though they were completely out of character i always used them with skaven too.

I am having trouble with skirmishes being ranked now. Especially jezzails. And as for skaven I miss the -1 to shoot PCB's because of the cloud of warpgas.

Kevlar
03-08-2011, 01:18
I miss storm vermin actually being elite troops with two handed weapons and str 6.

I miss the Vermin Lord being on par with the other greater demons.

I miss my Grey Seer having a warlord stat line. Although that did make warlords kinda pointless.

I miss skitterleap counts as charging. Especially in combination with the above mentioned Vermin Lord with better stats.

Nazrax
03-08-2011, 04:48
I have to go with the splitting of the chaos factions as well. It was great to have a vast horde of chaos-y things all mixed together-rabid beastmen foaming at the mouth, cackling daemons skittering across the land warping everything they touched, huge hulking chaos warriors crushing puny mortals beneath their feet...
It(for me at least) felt like a truely chaotic army. Mutants, daemons, spikey knights, oh my! lol

I do agree with the necromancer thing too. It seems GW forgot about the whole Nagash=Great Necromancer thing and fell in love with the worst of the worst in all of Sci-Fi/fantasy- Emo vampires. *shudders violently* I absolutely despise emo mixing with my grimdark. (all my own opinion of course)

I also liked that psychology had a bigger impact. Dont get me wrong, I do appreciate rules like steadfast, unbreakable and stubborn but those rules shouldnt be all that commonplace and should actually have a decent reason for being given to a certain unit or character. I think terror and fear should have a bigger impact in the game or that the rules for them should be changed to something more reflective of what they mean. (What that rule change should or could be I havent quite worked out lol)
I hope to see some sort of mixxing of the 3 chaos armies again in the next codex. Although SoM looks abit promising.

Rosstifer
03-08-2011, 04:58
I'm still bitter about how ranked infantry were handled in 6th and 7th. Waste. Of. Points
I also wish Mindrazor had never been printed. Or that Dark Elves couldn't use Shadow.

someone2040
03-08-2011, 05:14
Strength 4 Kroxigors.
Finally get the beefiest of the beefcake models they deserve (Yep, they're even stronger looking than the original 5th ed Kroxigors) and they get their strength reduced.

H33D
03-08-2011, 05:36
I just don't like how War Machines are vulnerable to poison now. I used to use some neat runes on my Anvil now I'm forced to bring the same old Stone/Resistance/Preservation combination whenever I bring it. Which is rarely I guess so no big deal but its the only thing that really irks me.

MOMUS
03-08-2011, 05:41
Skink cavalry

Jind_Singh
03-08-2011, 06:21
I miss:

Orcs & goblins

1) Snotlings being able to 'mimic' whatever Greenskin unit was around them - so they had frenzy when close to Savages for e.g. - thought it a fun take on these wee little buggers
2) Some of our special characters I used to like back in the day but sadly no longer with us
3) Squig Hoppers bounce! Yes it was annoying to the opponent me moving the hoppers one by one and bouncing them, but boy was it fun!

Empire

1) War Wagon - enough said, bring it back!
2) Having Empire Dwarves
3) Having Empire Ogres
4) Having Empire Halflings - bring them back!

Chaos

I liked the Realm of Chaos expansion the best! It was so great and colorful! I mean, I like the 3 new books, some of them more than the others, but the old Realm of Chaos was a grand time for Chaos in my eyes!

Dwarf - A lot of the cool special characters sadly culled when they did the recent book

ALL ARMY BOOKS IN 8th - Some of my previous magic items sadly gone (Martog's Basha - come back!)

Rules

1) Overlap = Simply because I never did work out how to use this most abstract of rules so it would be good to have back simply so I can learn how to play it properly!
2) Abstract line of sight - unit blocked another unit from line of sight, and units on hills could see over anything else not on a hill - simple. elegant, and it worked! They could have simply done an abstract line of sight system vs TLOS (which I don't like), so Knights could be seen over infantry models BUT NOT Monstrous infantry for e.g.
3) Rules for skirmishers - I liked the way they worked before simply because they acted like skirmishers to me!

Lord of Divine Slaughter
03-08-2011, 06:35
Splitting chaos up, instead of it being a vast army of everything bad in the world. It has to be the crime of the century.

The change to skirmish movement. 7th had a natural and organic flow to it, while 8th forced skirmishers to become even clunkier than normal regiments.

m1acca1551
03-08-2011, 06:56
- The new VC army book, having to pay 20 pts for stuff that every other lord character gets for free (heavy armour), necromancer lists etc
- Steadfast i'm so sick of a skaven slaves holding up a vampire lord plus grave guard for a whole game due to being steadfast and re-roll leadership
- Re-rolling leadership tests due to BSB and General *see above
- No guess range for arty... "what army are you playing to day?" "a nuln themed empire army" ... "bugger"
- Splitting of chaos books, i do use beastmen miniatures as stand ins for marauders... still not the same thing :P
- Cavalry being nerfed to the point of uselessness

Thanks to the OP had my whinge for the day :P

dragonet111
03-08-2011, 07:04
Gaze of the Gods, i believe. Was a cheap 4+ ward (30pts), but if you ever fled (i think for any reason, not just combat!), you immediately turned into a spawn. Great item.



I'd second the vote for psychology. Some things were over the top (fear autobreaking), but its now just useless...

Actually you were turned into a spawn if you were still fleeing at the start of the magic phase.

The Clairvoyant
03-08-2011, 07:32
As someone else said, i still call it 'total power' rather than irresistible. Its easier to say too!

When ghouls became skirmishers, the designers notes said they did so because they wanted ghouls to be distinctly different from skellies and not just be another ranked unit. Oh well!

I too miss the Necromancer Lord, and especially his statline from 4th ed! When everyone elses wizards were WS3 and maybe 2 attacks if they were lucky, here was a WS7 character with 5 attacks.

I really miss the old liche priest heirarchy too for casting spells.

And of course the other unforgiveable thing was releasing the VC army book in 5th edition and then 2 weeks later release 6th edition and make the book unusable.

And for 40k, third edition.

snyggejygge
03-08-2011, 07:36
The division of chaos into three seperate armies.

Same here, the diversity of the chaos army is what made me collect them back in 4:th edition, now my current army looks nothing like it used to.

Wishing
03-08-2011, 07:46
Even though I agree that the demise of the necromancer isn't right, I understand GW's problem. They made a decision to give each army a focused aesthetic design and strong visual character, and as part of that process they split the undead into egyptian themed undead and european gothic themed undead. Since the european undead were given the vampire theme, and they wanted to enforce that theme strictly, there was nowhere for the necromancer lords to go... a necromancer army would use the same troops as the vampire army, just with different characters. It doesn't fit.

Personally I think their mistake was the way they made the vampire list. If I were in charge of undead development, I would reinvent the vampires and no longer have them as lords of shambling undead, but have them as lords of the province of Sylvania. Make them a twisted variant of the empire list, with a variety of living troops like militia and crossbowmen, and keep the vampire themed units like Blood Knights, Giant Bats, evil wolves, etc. Keeps Ghouls here as well. Keep the vampire feel, but exorcise the "classic" undead parts from the army.

This would then open up the option for a Warhammer Armies: Lords of Death, led by Necromancers and Wight Kings and featuring all the classic undead troops of skeletons and zombies in a variety of shapes and sizes, and ethereal hosts of ghosts, spectres, banshees and wraiths.

Maybe I'm alone in this but when I think "vampire" I think of blood sucking nobles and enslaved minions, not vampires leading armies of zombies. I can't picture Lestat from Interview with the Vampire, or Dracula, leading a unit of skeletons as easy as I can him leading a unit of blood-conditioned humans. Basically the division I want is the same division they already have in Blood Bowl - you have Tomb Kings, with mummies and skeletons, Necromancers, with zombies and wights, and Vampires, with vampires and human thralls. I think that would be much better for warhammer than the current setup.

ihavetoomuchminis
03-08-2011, 08:06
I miss the rule that made skaven players forced to field skaven clanwarriors to be able to field other units (slaves). I'm not a skaven player.

I miss the Warriors mixing with daemons (but not with beastmen).

I miss Ogres, Dragon Ogres and Shaggoth in Beastmen.

As Jind_Sigh said, the empire war wagon and the halflings (and his crazy war machines).

War Machines being immune to poison.

Necromancers as they were before, of course.

I agree with some of what Wishing says. I think that in the VC army, there should be full units of vampires, not just the Bloodknights, but infantry units, and it would be great to have some human units bounded to the vampire. I don't mind the Undead creatures, at least some of them. I don't think that zombies or eskeletons, p. example, fit my idea of a vampire army. They fit way better in a necromancer army. All the "raised corpses" units fit better in a necromancer's army.

shelfunit.
03-08-2011, 08:29
1) Dwarfs not using wood (or only doing so very, very rarely)
2) Flame cannons and gyrocopters being useful
3) Combat results not modifying leadership (long time ago I know)
4) Wp and Cl
5) Minimum amounts of troop types that have to be taken in an army
6) Magic resistance being useful
7) Tactics being more than just list building and deployment (followed by good dice rolls)
8) Single Chaos army

Odin
03-08-2011, 08:36
Splitting my fantastic Chaos army into 3 boring armies.

ivan55599
03-08-2011, 09:00
I'm mainly 8th ed. player, but I followed WH for some years (4?)

1. 3 khaos armies (but how ally thing is now?) as khaos player.
2. interesting spells, powers ect (Sword of Change and horrors could turn models into spawn)
3. deserted factions (Kislev, khaos dwarfs) and units, characters, models (Aekold Helbrass, Abraal, fimir ect)
or some are available, but are ridiculously expensive now (well, rare collections)

Commissar Vaughn
03-08-2011, 09:06
1) Its called Total Power!
2) Everything in this game has a LD stat but the only army that uses it is DOW! Bring back psychology for everyone!
3) +1 save for having shield and sword....What? Why? Only sounds like a small change doesnt it but it messed up the whole metagame...when infantry got tougher(for no good reason) everything else had to get stronger and becouse everything else was stronger, everythings had to get tougher/better armoured etc etc etc ad infinatum. Should have left it alone, the game was fine as it was, doesnt even make sense as changes go....

Jolly Puggles
03-08-2011, 09:12
Even though I agree that the demise of the necromancer isn't right, I understand GW's problem. They made a decision to give each army a focused aesthetic design and strong visual character, and as part of that process they split the undead into egyptian themed undead and european gothic themed undead. Since the european undead were given the vampire theme, and they wanted to enforce that theme strictly, there was nowhere for the necromancer lords to go... a necromancer army would use the same troops as the vampire army, just with different characters. It doesn't fit.

Personally I think their mistake was the way they made the vampire list. If I were in charge of undead development, I would reinvent the vampires and no longer have them as lords of shambling undead, but have them as lords of the province of Sylvania. Make them a twisted variant of the empire list, with a variety of living troops like militia and crossbowmen, and keep the vampire themed units like Blood Knights, Giant Bats, evil wolves, etc. Keeps Ghouls here as well. Keep the vampire feel, but exorcise the "classic" undead parts from the army.

This would then open up the option for a Warhammer Armies: Lords of Death, led by Necromancers and Wight Kings and featuring all the classic undead troops of skeletons and zombies in a variety of shapes and sizes, and ethereal hosts of ghosts, spectres, banshees and wraiths.

Maybe I'm alone in this but when I think "vampire" I think of blood sucking nobles and enslaved minions, not vampires leading armies of zombies. I can't picture Lestat from Interview with the Vampire, or Dracula, leading a unit of skeletons as easy as I can him leading a unit of blood-conditioned humans. Basically the division I want is the same division they already have in Blood Bowl - you have Tomb Kings, with mummies and skeletons, Necromancers, with zombies and wights, and Vampires, with vampires and human thralls. I think that would be much better for warhammer than the current setup.

This. Totally this. If GW did it like this, it would be totally awesome, in-keeping with the fluff and I get my Necromancers back! I never really understood the whole 'Vampire leading hordes of undead' thing myself...maybe the odd Vamp Lord that's been studying necromancy, but I don't imagine every Vampire being a necromancer, not even half of them.

lilloser2010
03-08-2011, 09:34
I miss cold ones with two attacks. I still remember the furore when they lost it. And male dark elf wizards. I really loved the old male warlock, and loved the unreleased version even more.

Deon
03-08-2011, 10:51
i kinda miss al the fluffy magic items, in the new orc and goblin army book

eldargal
03-08-2011, 10:57
I'm still struggling to cope with the loss of the Everqueen character from High Elves and the War Wagon from the Empire lists. Beyond that I adapt fairly well.

hashrat
03-08-2011, 11:07
- Necromancer led undead, I also didn't get around to buying them before they ceased to exist.
- Chaos :( Really? Demon armies.. are we in the eye of terror?
- 8 Magic items per army, I despise that idea.

snottlebocket
03-08-2011, 11:08
This. Totally this. If GW did it like this, it would be totally awesome, in-keeping with the fluff and I get my Necromancers back! I never really understood the whole 'Vampire leading hordes of undead' thing myself...maybe the odd Vamp Lord that's been studying necromancy, but I don't imagine every Vampire being a necromancer, not even half of them.

Not to mention that by now it feels like it would be pretty rare to find an empire noble who could actually survive daylight.

lilloser2010
03-08-2011, 11:10
I'm still struggling to cope with the loss of the Everqueen character from High Elves and the War Wagon from the Empire lists. Beyond that I adapt fairly well.

I second this. The everqueen is (was? Do GW still make her?) a beautiful model and the War Wagon was a very unique concept that charactierised the Empire range.

The new land ship forgeworld produces makes up for the loss of the war wagon slightly, and I hope the everqueen returns when the high elf book gets redone.


LilLoser

russellmoo
03-08-2011, 19:52
King Kazador- and useful flame cannons, I also really miss Thunderers that could move and shoot

I also miss Ikit Claw being worth his points- 2d6" x 2 movement for going downhill with a doomwheel- man that was fun

In fact- I really miss +1 rank for shooting if positioned on a hill

Guzzla's battlebrew-

Battlemagic- It made the game take forever, but magic phases were really fun-

Fuzzymoldyork
03-08-2011, 20:35
My biggest one happened between 5th and 6th editions. In 5th edition (and probably older) when the general of your army died the entire force was required to take a panic test.

I have always thought that this was a beautiful mechanic that balanced the loss of a VC general with those of others.

I'm not suggesting we go back to that time but I will always miss the thrill of killing my opponents general, and seeing the look on the other person's face as half his force, craps their pants and runs right off the board edge.

vinush
03-08-2011, 20:52
My biggest one happened between 5th and 6th editions. In 5th edition (and probably older) when the general of your army died the entire force was required to take a panic test.

I have always thought that this was a beautiful mechanic that balanced the loss of a VC general with those of others.

I'm not suggesting we go back to that time but I will always miss the thrill of killing my opponents general, and seeing the look on the other person's face as half his force, craps their pants and runs right off the board edge.

Ah, excellent times. I'll never forget the time I doom divered my friend's general (By pure chance and not on purpose thanks to their crazy scatter rule), killed him outright and his entire army failed their panic check fleeing off the board (this was my first turn, the first turn of the game).

Good times... :shifty:

Confessor_Atol
03-08-2011, 22:38
Playing since 5th edition,

:(-I miss distinct vampire bloodline powers forcing a player to choose their srength/weeknesses......

:(-I miss distinct marks of chaos, that weren't always sharing magic items and powers.....

:(-I miss deamons in my warriors.....

Maoriboy007
03-08-2011, 23:26
the "Remove unit/models with no save of any kind regardles of remaining wounds"

this concept was mind bogglingly stupid when it was limited to the Gateway spell. In context I see it as removing the old autobreak fear rule from psycology and putting it in another part of the game, its similar in concept.

Veshnakar
04-08-2011, 01:05
I miss Chaos Dwarfs being openly supported by gamesworkshop. The advent of the new forge world list is looking promising, but it will be an approval required list, and thus most of my opponents and the tournaments I frequent won't accept them.

Also, I TERRIBLY miss the 6th edition dark elf book days. Sure it wasn't super fun being at the very bottom of the pile by any means, but there was an extreme lack of dark elf players back then and the army was widely accepted as being a skill centric army, and I much preferred it to how it is now. AND I could field two war hydrae for my Karond Kar list without being ridiculed.

I like playing an underdog/uncommon and now dark elves are anything but now. I can only hold out hope that the next book knocks them down a significant amount of pegs so my friends can stop using "dark elves are overpowered" as an excuse when I beat them into the ground, even considering I did so regularly in 6th edition.

Shadey
04-08-2011, 02:49
The division of chaos into three seperate armies.

I don't mind the division. It has allowed more detail and the source material has provided sufficient inspiration.

I would like to be able to use them as allies though in bigger battles though of course up the opposition.

One of the big changes that I remember people not liking is Norsca becoming semi Chaosy. I personally loved it. I love my evil vikings, it makes sense with their location and how Chaos corrupts everything, and adds variety along with helping to explain the massive numbers that Chaos seems capable of fielding.

red_zebra_ve
04-08-2011, 03:41
I miss my DE City Guard, and been able to give Repeater Crossbows to nearly every body, even to COK! (Expensive, but fun).
I miss cold ones being something more than stronger, slower and stupid horses.

I miss the Bretonnians being Knights In Shining Armour with Robin of the Woods, and not the grim medieval army they are today.

I miss Kislev, Halflings, Chaos Dwarves and DOWs.

I miss lapping around, and Siege battles.

brionl
04-08-2011, 04:33
Chaos Warbands
D1000 tables for Chaos Mutations and Daemon Weapons

Wishing
04-08-2011, 08:35
One of the big changes that I remember people not liking is Norsca becoming semi Chaosy. I personally loved it. I love my evil vikings, it makes sense with their location and how Chaos corrupts everything, and adds variety along with helping to explain the massive numbers that Chaos seems capable of fielding.

I don't mind Norse-themed Chaos units at all, but I do miss the time when the Norse also were an autonomous non-Chaos human army. I remember there was a great citadel journal army list for them by Tuomas Pirinen, even though I don't think they ever got any proper models.

Like with the vampires, Blood Bowl shows the way it should be for me - that game has a human non-Chaos Norse team. :)

Senbei
04-08-2011, 10:07
I used to play an army Led by Necromancers and made up almost entirely of Zombies. Then GW released a new Vampire counts book and the army was unplayable. I gave away about 120 of my zombies (Kept a few for Mordheim, Necromunda and roleplaying) then quit playing WFB completely.

ihavetoomuchminis
04-08-2011, 10:35
the "Remove unit/models with no save of any kind regardles of remaining wounds"

this concept was mind bogglingly stupid when it was limited to the Gateway spell. In context I see it as removing the old autobreak fear rule from psycology and putting it in another part of the game, its similar in concept.


That is a good one. This is a change i'm unable to get over. It's a frustrating mechanic, not only for infantry units, but more for monsters and other things worth 200-300 points, wich are a central part of your army, and are unable to last in the battlefield for at least 4 turns. and related to this, i miss when Magic Resistance was useful.

Von Wibble
04-08-2011, 10:56
The Empire becoming mono race and mono nation. I want my halflings and Kislevities back. The Dwarfs and Ogres were nice, but the Winged Lancers and War Wagon were cool, and the halfling hot pot was the best war machine ever. Plus, it really highlighted the desperate state of the world when halflings were willing to part with food :).

Snap!

Although I have to add the original hot pot fired food that had been ruined by the addition of goblin blood....

Chaos splitting into 3.

The dead or fled rule - units should yield VPs at half strength.

SunTzu
04-08-2011, 11:45
Splitting up of Chaos. It's been discussed already at length so I will say no more, but it's among the worst things GW have ever done.

Beastmen changing from "the children of Chaos fighting a secret war in the darkness of the forest" to "really angry guys who want to destroy civilisation, and could if they wanted to, but they don't want to, even though we just said they did". Everything interesting about them vanished overnight.

Random charge distances. Srsly? GTFO.

Uber-spells. Oh look, you've rolled two sixes, that means my 360 points of Chosen and 360 point Chaos Lord are now all Clanrats suddenly with nothing I can do to stop it! That was fun!

Dogs of War. C'mon, GW, I have like three hundred of those guys, now you tell me they don't exist any more? WTF?

Odin
04-08-2011, 11:51
Splitting up of Chaos. It's been discussed already at length so I will say no more, but it's among the worst things GW have ever done.

Beastmen changing from "the children of Chaos fighting a secret war in the darkness of the forest" to "really angry guys who want to destroy civilisation, and could if they wanted to, but they don't want to, even though we just said they did". Everything interesting about them vanished overnight.

This appears to be the most common response. Please GW, LISTEN!!!


Random charge distances. Srsly? GTFO.

The single best change to the WHFB rules ever IMO. Possibly a bit too random now, but way better than the old system.

SunTzu
04-08-2011, 12:00
I've thought of another one, and this time it's not Chaos-themed: the Bretonnian Arrowhead formation. They kept the Lance (though in a different shape), for reasons that are unclear as it doesn't represent how medieval cavalry fought and doesn't really work very elegantly on the tabletop especially in the new edition, but got rid of the Arrowhead, which was actually broadly comparable to a genuine historical formation for longbowmen! Arrowheads used to look awesome on the tabletop. Sad panda.

Oh - and another vote for vampire bloodlines. Used to be that if you wanted a combat-monster you'd choose Blood Dragons, or an uber-wizard you'd choose Necrarch, and so on. This meant you had a genuine choice to make, and could balance strengths against weaknesses. Now you just take whatever you want, and have a combat-monster uber-wizard! Hurray for blandness!

ColShaw
04-08-2011, 14:57
I miss the following:

1) Vampire bloodlines. I LIKED my Lahmians, dammit. I cannot stand the current VC.

2) Unified Chaos army (adding my voice to the choir, here).

3) Chaos infighting (the encouragement to mix & match different Chaos Gods makes my inner fluff-bunny curl up and die).

4) The ability to make competitive armies without uber-magic. i.e. any magic system before 8th Ed.

5) Useful Magic Resistance.

6) The change to 8th Ed in general. For reasons I don't fully understand in myself, it virtually killed Warhammer for me.

Odin
04-08-2011, 15:19
I miss the following:

1) Vampire bloodlines. I LIKED my Lahmians, dammit. I cannot stand the current VC.


They never went away.

hd.40
04-08-2011, 15:26
Remember when skirimishers used to skirmish?

Odin
04-08-2011, 15:47
Remember when skirimishers used to skirmish?

Yes, I remember that people used to abuse the intention of the rules and do all sorts of stupid stuff until GW really had little choice but to change the rules.

fruitystu
04-08-2011, 15:49
^^This.

Playing all Skirmishing armies was about as much fun as inserting a Badger into your ear. Even when you could march block them.

SunTzu
04-08-2011, 16:00
3) Chaos infighting (the encouragement to mix & match different Chaos Gods makes my inner fluff-bunny curl up and die).

Actually that's true. When I see Tzeentch Sorcerers wearing Collars of Khorne in units of Warriors of Nurgle, or whatever, it makes me want to cry.

One has to presume that the reason Chaos was split up was to reduce the combinations and opportunity for abuse; reasonable enough, but to then reintroduce it by allowing champions of one god to take items from another defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?

Bring back a united Chaos army and make alignment to a particular god actually mean something!

ihavetoomuchminis
04-08-2011, 16:09
4) The ability to make competitive armies without uber-magic. i.e. any magic system before 8th Ed.



I assume you didn't play a single game in 7th edition then. 7th edition didn't kill the game for me. It WAS a dead game.

malisteen
04-08-2011, 16:14
Splitting undead into tomb kings and vamp counts.

8th edition percentages rendering my half done zombie dragon conversion worthless. It was weak but at least viable in 3,000 when it could be your second lord, now that your general has to ride in any game even resembling a rational size, it's just worthless.

hd.40
04-08-2011, 16:37
Yes, I remember that people used to abuse the intention of the rules and do all sorts of stupid stuff until GW really had little choice but to change the rules.


It's too bad, cause I only had one or two units in my army. But now i find them useless. But I guess thats what happens when you only play for fun.

brightblade
04-08-2011, 16:38
Wood Elf long bows not having a range of 36".... ;)

ColShaw
04-08-2011, 16:39
I assume you didn't play a single game in 7th edition then. 7th edition didn't kill the game for me. It WAS a dead game.

I played 5th Ed, 6th Ed, and all the way through 7th... probably a couple hundred games of 7th Ed. Sorry we differ on this, but your assumption is completely incorrect.

SunTzu
04-08-2011, 16:51
To be fair, 6th/7th Ed magic was broken. In a different way to how 8th Ed magic is broken, but still, if your opponent turned up to a 2000 point game with a Level 4 and three Level 2s, all tooled up, and all you'd taken was a Level 2 with a Dispel Scroll... you knew you were going to be in for a very long day. (Figuratively speaking, that is. The game itself would probably be over in two turns). 12+ Power Dice, with Bound Items just to rub it in, would annihilate an army with only 3 Dispel Dice to protect itself, pretty much always.

I'm not a fan of 8th Ed spells, but 7th Ed PD generation was just wrong.

Voss
04-08-2011, 16:57
To be fair, 6th/7th Ed magic was broken. In a different way to how 8th Ed magic is broken, but still, if your opponent turned up to a 2000 point game with a Level 4 and three Level 2s, all tooled up, and all you'd taken was a Level 2 with a Dispel Scroll... you knew you were going to be in for a very long day. (Figuratively speaking, that is. The game itself would probably be over in two turns). 12+ Power Dice, with Bound Items just to rub it in, would annihilate an army with only 3 Dispel Dice to protect itself, pretty much always.

I'm not a fan of 8th Ed spells, but 7th Ed PD generation was just wrong.

Indeed. I was glad to see that go. Most editions of fantasy had broken magic, but it was always broken in a different way. Sadly I think the card game of 4th ( or was it 5th?) edition was the least broken.

3rd certainly had its crazy moments. 'So, my level 25 gobbo shaman just gated in d6 greater daemons... do you want to concede now, or are you going to pray during the instability tests?'

streetsamurai
04-08-2011, 17:41
My biggest one happened between 5th and 6th editions. In 5th edition (and probably older) when the general of your army died the entire force was required to take a panic test.

I have always thought that this was a beautiful mechanic that balanced the loss of a VC general with those of others.

I'm not suggesting we go back to that time but I will always miss the thrill of killing my opponents general, and seeing the look on the other person's face as half his force, craps their pants and runs right off the board edge.

made sense for some army like orcs who rely heavily on the lord to keep order, but didn't make any sense foe disciplined elite warrior a la HE or dwarves (who would probably take a revenge oath if theyr lord died)

zak
04-08-2011, 17:53
I really liked the card game version of magic. It was alamost a game within a game and I never really saw magic as over powered. Hero's on the other hand were a nightmare!!

I wasn't too upset when Chaos was broken up. However, I would have liked an opportunity to use them together some how. Maybe using deamons in the same way as 40k does now where they are summoned or possess characters. I never liked mixing beasts and warriors. Something about it just never seemed right.

Forest Goblins....How dare they bin them overnight. I had hundreds of them and they were really nice figures. In fact they haven't produced better core goblin figures since.

GW keep changing there bloody minds over the base sizes for Ungors. Twice!!! I have used so many bases on the damn figures. The plastic Ungors from the old mixed set are useless!!!

macejase
04-08-2011, 18:31
A few changes that are mentioned that I'd definately like to see (but doubt we ever will...)

I don't see why they can't bring "Hordes of Chaos" back, without getting rid of the other books. Beastmen should be the beasts from the forests of the empire, and have its own book. Likewise daemons could keep their own book, for those who wish to play as one of the chaos gods, but I still don't like the way the gods mix units and items. Warriors could be redone as Hordes once more, to focus more on the tribes of Norsca, men and few beasts from the Wastes themselves, and all the daemonic things they summon in support.

I love the idea of the undead being split into three seperate armies as well. Tomb Kings are fine as they are, the theme and fluff behind them are great. Whats left of the undead should be split into Warhammer armies: Undead, with Necromancers and the current 'true' undead stuff like skeletons, zombies, ghost hosts, corpse carts, dire wolves. Bring back Nagash here too! But then a third book: Vampire Counts, with the Vamps leading the men of Sylvannia, along with their twisted but technically not 'undead' ghouls, plus the bat units like swarms and fell bats, perhaps with skeletons but no zombies etc.

I'd play the latter, personally. I love vampires and I hate zombies, I'd much rather vampires were the leaders of men. I'd also dislike it if vampires became so common as to be foot infantry as well. I barely like the idea of blood knights as it is. Vampires should be characters, nothing else. I like the idea of a vampire counts army only containing one single vampire, the general. The rest of it is led by human thralls and the vampires' evil legions. One vampire fighting for another vampire still doesnt add up for me, let alone whole units of them running around together and being killed by stuff like skaven. Aren't vampires meant to be insanely strong and hard to kill...

They could do other splits too, like an all Goblins book with enough stuff in it to make all Night Goblin, all Forest Goblin, etc armies (or even make those as books themselves haha)

Plus there are plenty of human nations that have not yet got armybooks (Kislev, Araby, Cathay)

The only trouble is if you have the same thing in multiple books and one book gets updated, it suddenly makes the other army underpowered (but they could just reprint the book with the new statlines...)



Sorry this is a bit off topic :shifty:

TsukeFox
04-08-2011, 20:57
30 point skaven assassins. BooYaa!

macejase
04-08-2011, 21:09
A few changes that are mentioned that I'd definately like to see (but doubt we ever will...)

I don't see why they can't bring "Hordes of Chaos" back, without getting rid of the other books. Beastmen should be the beasts from the forests of the empire, and have its own book. Likewise daemons could keep their own book, for those who wish to play as one of the chaos gods, but I still don't like the way the gods mix units and items. Warriors could be redone as Hordes once more, to focus more on the tribes of Norsca, men and few beasts from the Wastes themselves, and all the daemonic things they summon in support.

I love the idea of the undead being split into three seperate armies as well. Tomb Kings are fine as they are, the theme and fluff behind them are great. Whats left of the undead should be split into Warhammer armies: Undead, with Necromancers and the current 'true' undead stuff like skeletons, zombies, ghost hosts, corpse carts, dire wolves. Bring back Nagash here too! But then a third book: Vampire Counts, with the Vamps leading the men of Sylvannia, along with their twisted but technically not 'undead' ghouls, plus the bat units like swarms and fell bats, perhaps with skeletons but no zombies etc.

I'd play the latter, personally. I love vampires and I hate zombies, I'd much rather vampires were the leaders of men. I'd also dislike it if vampires became so common as to be foot infantry as well. I barely like the idea of blood knights as it is. Vampires should be characters, nothing else. I like the idea of a vampire counts army only containing one single vampire, the general. The rest of it is led by human thralls and the vampires' evil legions. One vampire fighting for another vampire still doesnt add up for me, let alone whole units of them running around together and being killed by stuff like skaven. Aren't vampires meant to be insanely strong and hard to kill...

They could do other splits too, like an all Goblins book with enough stuff in it to make all Night Goblin, all Forest Goblin, etc armies (or even make those as books themselves haha)

Plus there are plenty of human nations that have not yet got armybooks (Kislev, Araby, Cathay)

The only trouble is if you have the same thing in multiple books and one book gets updated, it suddenly makes the other army underpowered (but they could just reprint the book with the new statlines...)



Sorry this is a bit off topic :shifty:


Actually, to sum that up, I guess what I miss is the flufflists at the back of the army books. They should bring those back and make them game legal.

So you have a necromancer list and/or Sylvanian army list within WA:VC, and a forest goblin list within WA:O&G :p

Maoriboy007
04-08-2011, 21:10
To be fair, 6th/7th Ed magic was broken. In a different way to how 8th Ed magic is broken, but still, if your opponent turned up to a 2000 point game with a Level 4 and three Level 2s, all tooled up, and all you'd taken was a Level 2 with a Dispel Scroll... you knew you were going to be in for a very long day. (Figuratively speaking, that is. The game itself would probably be over in two turns). 12+ Power Dice, with Bound Items just to rub it in, would annihilate an army with only 3 Dispel Dice to protect itself, pretty much always..The real problem was that most people turned up with 2+ caddies loaded with dispel scrolls and the situation was reversed, you paid for all the magic and got no use out of it. TBH if you got rid of all the "bonus dice powers" and dispel scrolls had a chance to fail then the 7th ed magic phase would have been just as acceptable.
The spells in 7th weren't quite as game winning as 8th ones for the most part either (with a few exceptions of course)

malisteen
04-08-2011, 21:33
The game can only sustain so many army lists. Yeah, 3 separate chaos lists lets you go into more detail, but it also stops you from fielding a number of fluff appropriate lists, forces people into much narrower themes whether they want them or not, and makes everyone wait an entire extra year for updates to their army books. Same with undead, yeah you get a bit more detail, but lists are also a lot more shoe-horned and everyone has to wait an extra six months to get anything new for their own armies.

I'd rather have fewer books with greater variety within them and tourney legal theme lists, myself, but I acknowledge that it's just a preferences thing.

I do miss necromancers as well. The most iconic leaders of the undead? The one who first brought undead into the fantasy world? Necromancer. Totally sidelined these days. Such a shame. You could give them a separate army book, but why make everyone wait an extra six months in order to put out a book that should look exactly like one that currently exists, only with another lord option? This is what we get for unnecessarily (imo, of course) overspecialized army books. "Oh, the army is vampire counts, we can't allow anyone to play it without vampires even if they want to!" Meh.

rayrod64
04-08-2011, 21:41
I miss ....

Bouncing bombs on my gyrocopters...

my Dwarven Juggernaught landship

Unified Chaos armys that got a bonus used the number of the gods fluff ....

my DOGS OF WAR army....

Voss
04-08-2011, 21:55
The game can only sustain so many army lists. Yeah, 3 separate chaos lists lets you go into more detail, but it also stops you from fielding a number of fluff appropriate lists, forces people into much narrower themes whether they want them or not, and makes everyone wait an entire extra year for updates to their army books. Same with undead, yeah you get a bit more detail, but lists are also a lot more shoe-horned and everyone has to wait an extra six months to get anything new for their own armies.

I'd rather have fewer books with greater variety within them and tourney legal theme lists, myself, but I acknowledge that it's just a preferences thing.

Well, the chaos books are also a bit... thin, beastmen and daemons especially so, since they didn't bother to really make up for the loss of other units. Particularly if you want a monogod daemon list, you've got zero options, which is ...ing terrible thing.



I do miss necromancers as well. The most iconic leaders of the undead? The one who first brought undead into the fantasy world? Necromancer. Totally sidelined these days. Such a shame. You could give them a separate army book, but why make everyone wait an extra six months in order to put out a book that should look exactly like one that currently exists, only with another lord option? This is what we get for unnecessarily (imo, of course) overspecialized army books. "Oh, the army is vampire counts, we can't allow anyone to play it without vampires even if they want to!" Meh.

I agree with this a great deal. Necromancers were the driving concept behind the undead in warhammer from the beginning. There was no logical reason to cut them from the current 'vampire' book. They needed all of a page, but no, instead they decided to just rip away options for no gain.

Balerion
05-08-2011, 07:30
What would a Necromancer lord have beyond what a 'counts as' Necromancer lord-by-way-of-Vampire lord doesn't have?

never understood the amount of ire generated by that change when it's so easy to repair it yourself.

vinush
05-08-2011, 07:34
Better mastery of raising the dead. Granted, he'd not be as solid in combat as a Vampire (That's what the Wight Lords are for) but he'd be a better magic user (L3 to start boostable to 4 instead of the Vampire's 2 boostable to 4 for a whopping 80 points extra!) He'd not cost 205 points naked, or require you to pump a further 200-250 points into him to get him to do what you need from a casting Lord for Undead.

Plus they're cooler.

THE \/ince

Aluinn
05-08-2011, 08:08
As army books update and editions change there are tweaks made to units/characters/background/etc.

And then somewhere amidst all of this massive upheaval that you somehow manage to cope with (let's be honest, most of us are rabid fan boys to our armies and a load of people always moan over whatever happens but keep on going regardless) there's one little thing that's changed that you can never quite get over, no matter how much better everything else is.

So I thought we could get a list of things that we all miss while I'm on a massive reminiscence trip down memory lane.

Mine is what they did to Necromancers.

I can almost live with the changes they made to Zombies (although they are crap now) and the fact that they've changed the fluff on ghouls to make them rank up in units rather than being a shambling mass of degenerate humans corrupted by eating corpse flesh.

However, the fact that they have now changed Necromancers to less than second rate characters really gets my goat. Necromancers are powerful wizards able to bend the will of the dead to their own ends, not the dross that we see in the VC army book we're forced to use nowadays.

So, what else is out there?

THE \/ince

I don't have another example to give, but I just wanted to say that I agree with you absolutely. The fetishy fixation on Vampires in the VC army (yeah I know it's named after them :)) as opposed to the old parent Undead army is bad enough, but then the removal of an alternative General in the latest VC army book really got my goat.

Let's face it, it's an undead army, not a vampire army. The vast majority of the army is not composed of vampires, but of other undead, and thus it can appeal to anyone who likes undead in general; this doesn't mean that they like vampires, much less the specific sort of aristocratic vampire that GW likes to push, with the exception of Strigoi (who also got less face time in the most recent book). So I really wish GW would not shove vampires down players' throats. They can go on calling the army Vampire Counts, as I'm sure they shall, but for Nagash's sake they could allow a little more freedom in character choice without causing any problems of any sort whatsoever.

What is so intolerable about a Necromancer with a higher magic level than 1, GW, what?!

EDIT:

@Balerion:

You can count a Vampire Lord as a Necromancer Lord, but there remains the issue of his crazy superhuman stats to kind of ruin the whole endeavor. The Accursed Armor really doesn't go a long way towards fixing this because, for one thing, it's a terribly underpowered option that gimps the character out of using Helm of Commandment to good effect even if he is a pure caster, never mind passing on a 2+ armor save (or a multitude of other, better things) to get it, and for another it doesn't result in the character having human-wizard-like stats anyway.

WarmbloodedLizard
05-08-2011, 08:20
-most leadership tests have become irrelevant (but i don't mind terror bombs and mass panic being gone)
-streamlining the army books (BM, TK, probably OK, etc.)/generally replacing of flavorful rules with shiny stuff for kids (big gribblies, etc.).
-horde-rule

falcone
05-08-2011, 08:26
I never played as them but I miss Dogs of War for some reason. Also, I know it's not rule related, but I miss many older models. So many OOP metals look so much better than more recent designs.

Horace35
05-08-2011, 13:47
I dont mind the split of WoC & DoC all that much, but I just dont like Beastmen as a stand alone army. They just dont seem interesting in the slightest to me plus now Im stuck with a large old regiment that never gets fielded.

I also hate it when my fav characters get erased from books.

Odin
05-08-2011, 15:13
What would a Necromancer lord have beyond what a 'counts as' Necromancer lord-by-way-of-Vampire lord doesn't have?

never understood the amount of ire generated by that change when it's so easy to repair it yourself.

Well, a weak point for a start - every good villain needs a weak point. The Necromancer is cool because he's physically weak but has the power to summon an army to do his fighting for him - classic bad guy, like Blofeld in his wheelchair. You don't get that with a counts as vampire, you get someone who can carve up chaos lords and cast top-level magic all in one package. Boring.

SunTzu
05-08-2011, 15:21
Well, a weak point for a start - every good villain needs a weak point. The Necromancer is cool because he's physically weak but has the power to summon an army to do his fighting for him - classic bad guy, like Blofeld in his wheelchair. You don't get that with a counts as vampire, you get someone who can carve up chaos lords and cast top-level magic all in one package. Boring.

I absolutely agree with this in principle, and I also miss Necromancers, it's a crime that they're all stuck at level 1.

However... already the only functional build for VCs is lots of Ghouls and Vampires that stay out of combat... they might be capable of carving up Chaos Lords if you tool them up to do so, but no-one wants them to as the spell casting is more important (vital, ha ha). I fear that, regrettably, allowing level 4 Necromancers alongside all the current army list would achieve nothing more than freeing up 100+ points to spend on more Ghouls or what have you.

It'd probably be worth it just to see Necromancers restored to their rightful place, but it would be a heck of a boost to VCs in competitive games, not to have to waste points on combat prowess they almost-never want to use.

vinush
05-08-2011, 15:27
I absolutely agree with this in principle, and I also miss Necromancers, it's a crime that they're all stuck at level 1.

However... already the only functional build for VCs is lots of Ghouls and Vampires that stay out of combat... they might be capable of carving up Chaos Lords if you tool them up to do so, but no-one wants them to as the spell casting is more important (vital, ha ha). I fear that, regrettably, allowing level 4 Necromancers alongside all the current army list would achieve nothing more than freeing up 100+ points to spend on more Ghouls or what have you.

It'd probably be worth it just to see Necromancers restored to their rightful place, but it would be a heck of a boost to VCs in competitive games, not to have to waste points on combat prowess they almost-never want to use.

SunTzu, I agree with you, which is why the alternate build for a Necromancer army in the 6th Edition VC army book lowered the points of your troops and shuffled the slots around a bit to compensate.

IMO, to make a master necromancer army viable, skeletons need to be cheaper (approx. the cost of current zombies) and zombies need a boost in stats or abilities as well as a point drop.

Maybe Skeletons should be 5 points with current stats (still a bit high if you compare to a human statline as a basis) and zombies should be 3 points with the regenerate rule, or a bit of a stat boost.

THE \/ince

Moe
05-08-2011, 16:22
I miss when the Undead were combined into 1 army, both Egyptian and Vampires. Allowed the player to customize his army as he/she wanted, Egyptian, Vampire, or anything in between.

There was a neat variety of units: Skeletons (including cavalry), Zombies, Ghouls, Mummies (I loved the look of a Mummy unit), Wights, Wraiths, Ghosts. Also Skeleton Chariots and Catapults. You could even have Skeleton Crossbowmen, and Zombies could have some different weapons.

As I recall for characters there was Liches, Necromancers (all levels), Mummy characters, Vampires, Wights, Wraiths. They didn't have all the Vampire Bloodlines, but with all the variety already, they weren't needed.

Aluinn
05-08-2011, 17:47
I absolutely agree with this in principle, and I also miss Necromancers, it's a crime that they're all stuck at level 1.

However... already the only functional build for VCs is lots of Ghouls and Vampires that stay out of combat... they might be capable of carving up Chaos Lords if you tool them up to do so, but no-one wants them to as the spell casting is more important (vital, ha ha). I fear that, regrettably, allowing level 4 Necromancers alongside all the current army list would achieve nothing more than freeing up 100+ points to spend on more Ghouls or what have you.

It'd probably be worth it just to see Necromancers restored to their rightful place, but it would be a heck of a boost to VCs in competitive games, not to have to waste points on combat prowess they almost-never want to use.

The hypothetical addition of a Necromancer Lord would require a new army book, unless it was done via White Dwarf, which probably isn't going to happen because it likely would have been in the most recent issue if GW was inclined to do so.

So, we should not assume that it would be a change happening in a vacuum, and there's really no reason to think it would cause balance issues when balance would be shifted in a multitude of other ways amongst all the units in the army in a new army book.

On its face, a Level 4 Necromancer priced similarly to a Level 4 Empire Wizard, with similar-to-identical stats, is not a balance problem unless the VC magic lore is just flat-out better than any of the rulebook lores (not true now and unlikely to be in the future, see new O&G, TK lores). In other words, the rest of the army is balanced against the rest of every other army, and if there is a problem with the army getting a Level 4 at a "normal" price for his stats, it can't be with the wizard himself but rather with other stuff. If the army benefits more from magic, that does not mean that its wizards have to pay a points tax. In fact, there is a hefty points tax already built into the cost of undead units which arguably has a lot to do with the benefits they derive from magic (i.e. raising), and one could even make the case that this is an outdated concept given the prevalence of enormously powerful unit buffs in all BRB lores (cf Mindrazor) and the fact that Lore of Life includes a spell which does this for living models.

So, no, it wouldn't break the army, at all. I bet that if you added it as an option even now, tourney players would stick to the Vamp Lord caster, who has tons of benefits that a Necro Lord would not, for example being harder to kill stat-wise (quite important when we're talking about the General), being able to take armor, having Bloodline powers (MotBA is one of the main crutches propping up the army right now), and perhaps most importantly giving a unit WS7 (speaking of crutches, there's another :)).

Balerion
05-08-2011, 17:53
Well, a weak point for a start - every good villain needs a weak point. The Necromancer is cool because he's physically weak but has the power to summon an army to do his fighting for him - classic bad guy, like Blofeld in his wheelchair. You don't get that with a counts as vampire, you get someone who can carve up chaos lords and cast top-level magic all in one package. Boring.
Except that's not how things work in WFB, at all.

A specialist is almost always better than a jack-of-all-trades or a unit with multi-functionality. How many VC players out there already field a Lvl 4 Vamp and then strive to keep him out of combat for the entire game? We both know there are tons of people that do this.

A cheap Lvl 3-4 wizard is a powerful thing for an army to have access to, especially when that army can put up Unbreakable walls of models to keep stuff away from the wimpy wizard. You guys need to convince me the Necro would be fair as well as fluffy, and would actually make the army somewhat different to an army led by a vampire lord, to get me on your side.

Aluinn
06-08-2011, 06:30
Except that's not how things work in WFB, at all.

A specialist is almost always better than a jack-of-all-trades or a unit with multi-functionality. How many VC players out there already field a Lvl 4 Vamp and then strive to keep him out of combat for the entire game? We both know there are tons of people that do this.

A cheap Lvl 3-4 wizard is a powerful thing for an army to have access to, especially when that army can put up Unbreakable walls of models to keep stuff away from the wimpy wizard. You guys need to convince me the Necro would be fair as well as fluffy, and would actually make the army somewhat different to an army led by a vampire lord, to get me on your side.

Wellll I just tried in the previous post. Perhaps this requires the dark, forbidden magic of bullet points:

-A Necromancer Lord would be something added to an entirely new book, so the balance of everything in the army would be changing. This would allow ample opportunity to ensure that literally any option at all is not broken, including a Necro Lord. Thus, in some sense, this whole debate is meaningless, from a rules perspective, but I shall continue for the sake of argument.

-Caster Vampire Lords are not just a Level 4 with added points for combat stats you don't use. You're paying for T5, M6, Ld10, the ability to take Master of the Black Arts (arguably broken), up to 2+ armor on your wizard, and especially a +4-5 passive WS buff to a unit of your choice every turn, which does not require any use of magic and thus is about 90% reliable. The only thing keeping it from being absolutely reliable is the fact that some fast cav or somesuch might charge your wizard bunker, but they're unlikely to find that a tasty prospect because ... the Vamp has good enough combat stats to kill them, especially with ranks and a banner in the bunker backing him up. These things all cost points themselves, but they happen to be criminally undercosted and the only thing keeping them even slightly in check is that the Vamp Lord is expensive--i.e. their cost is in some sense built into the base cost of the character. They probably would not be available to any Necromancer ... but we don't know. They might also not even exist in the next book.

(In other words, the upgrades one can give to a casting-focused Vampire appear to be deliberately undercosted in order to avoid making him overpriced for what he does. You get what you pay for; he is a better caster than a Necro would probably be in rough proportion to his higher cost--+2 power dice every turn--with additional utility that a Necro probably would not have, and more survivability as well.)

-Assuming similar points to the current book for a tooled-up combat Vamp Lord (~450 points), a Level 4 Necromancer at ~300 points (after items, this being based on the cost of Empire Level 4s) would still not leave enough points to take both, except in very large games. So you'd functionally be choosing not between a cheapo caster and a combat monster or a single, slightly better, more expensive caster, but between a Necro and a caster Vamp. If the Vamp is more powerful overall then he is likely to still be an attractive choice in spite of costing more points, because you're in essence only getting one Lord and you'd better make the most of that choice.

-You will possibly still need Vampires in order to march. (Though I realize the current wording of the General's march bubble rule doesn't specify this, that is probably because the General currently must be a Vampire; see Tomb Kings for evidence that other characters may not permit marching in the future.) If this doesn't seem like a huge, huge deal, I don't know what to say. It's not a viable solution to just Vanhel's everything instead, because realistically you can only get off about two Vanhel's per turn against an opposing Level 4 with MotBA, which, again, a Necro Lord probably wouldn't even have, and beyond that it means you aren't getting other spells off which you may want, e.g. Invocation to replace models lost to shooting in early turns. Then again (see first point above), magic and rules for marching may be changed altogether.

I think that about covers it.

With all the above, I can say with reasonable certainty that if you plopped an Empire Wizard Lord who could only take Lore of the Vampires and always knew Invocation of Nehek into the Lords section of the VC book right now, it wouldn't be better than a casting Vampire Lord, even for the points. No MotBA, no Helm (in practice; WS3 is not worth it), no marching (depending on errata, but likely), and greater fragility would mean that tourney armies would almost certainly be sticking with what they take now. It would be a fluff choice, primarily.

Balerion
06-08-2011, 07:10
I agree with your caveat that the discussion is relatively pointless, given the total rebalancing that would occur with a new book, but I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion that Necrolords wouldn't have a place in tourney builds.

One important question, though; does this hypothetical Necrolord pick his spells like hero-level Necros do?

Also (since I'm not familiar with points values in the Empire book) are you suggesting that this Necrolord would cost 200 base (Undead special rule + Lvl 4 wizard + Invocation + human stats)? If so, I think it's somewhat misleading to price him at "300 including items" because he wouldn't really need items to warrant inclusion in an army (most likely one led by a hero-level vamp).

Heck, at 200 points, especially if he's picking his spells, it would be worth doubling up on naked Necro lords and not using either of them as your general.

Liber
06-08-2011, 08:31
Flame Cannons -

i know it might seem frivolous, but the dwarf flame cannon was always one of my favorite old models, and the idea of it was also very appealing.

however it cost 140 pts, and was rather difficult to use...combined with its lack of runes/engineers AND 7th ed rule of partial template hits being hit on a 4+ made it useless.

with the release of 8th edition and the tossing of the 'partial hit' rules for templates, the community slowly began to realize that the flame cannon was for the 1st time ever actually worth its points...the time had come to buy one!

but of course, in typical fashion GW quickly (2 weeks or so) errata'd this, and broke the flame cannon as it had never been broken before - it now followed the rules of 'fire throwers' in the main rulebook...and lost its whopping 12 inch range.

i still to this day get upset thinking about how close i was too having this unit, if it wasn't for GW's completely uncalled for smack of the nerf bat. looking back over the years its almost as if they don't want to actually sell any.

skaven fire throwers are 50 points (i think) and the dwarfs now have a 140 point model (a fricken cannon, not some hand held hose) that does the same damn thing....

the flame cannon was also nerfed in a 2nd way that is overlooked most of the time: it now has to roll on the blackfire weapon misfire chart. which has an "exploded" result of a 1 or a 2. the flame cannon had its own custom misfire chart, which only had a misfire result of 1 as an explosion. so much for the famed craftsmanship of the dwarfs.

i still hope-however faintly-that some day i will be able to include this fun item in a competitive list.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
06-08-2011, 09:19
The split of Chaos into 3 factions. Mono-God armies used to be diverse and interesting. Now they're forces of redundancy due to legalities.

The split of Undead. I realize that this had to be done and has done a lot to deepen the
fluff of the Warhammer World. However, I remember playing Dark Omens and crushing zombies and mummies with commander Burnhard and the Grudgebringers. I miss old Undead. I miss Nagash.

I don't even play either of the factions I addressed. However, if these events had not happened, I might.

malisteen
06-08-2011, 16:58
However... already the only functional build for VCs is lots of Ghouls and Vampires that stay out of combat... they might be capable of carving up Chaos Lords if you tool them up to do so, but no-one wants them to as the spell casting is more important (vital, ha ha).

Not just that, but with characters no longer able to clear kill zones, close combat is simply too dangerous a place for vampires these days. Hero vamps are too vulnerable regardless of how you kit them, and while you can build reasonably hard lord vamps, the fact that in all but the largest games your army crumbles if the one lord you can afford to include dies... Well that's the reason you mostly just don't see melee vamp characters anymore.

Lordsaradain
06-08-2011, 17:59
The division of chaos really buggs me. A DoC army makes no sense fluffwise, they should be summoned additions to a Chaos army.

warplock
06-08-2011, 18:07
Flame Cannons -
but of course, in typical fashion GW quickly (2 weeks or so) errata'd this, and broke the flame cannon as it had never been broken before - it now followed the rules of 'fire throwers' in the main rulebook...and lost its whopping 12 inch range.

It really does beggar belief, doesn't it. I mean what were they thinking? Who approved this madness? Didn't anyone proof-read the rule change?

What were they thinking?

Paint it Red
06-08-2011, 18:11
I too have reservations about the vampire counts book. I really liked the feel of the martial blood dragon vampires of 6th edition. I am not overly keen on the fluff of the von carstein vampires. Unfortunately that was the direction they took for the current book. Now that 8th edition nerfed skeletons compared to ghouls I have lost all interest for the moment.

vinush
06-08-2011, 18:13
Forgive my ignorance, how did 8th particularly nerf Skellies over ghouls?

THE \/ince

yabbadabba
06-08-2011, 18:55
The move from Level 5/10/15/20/25 heroes?

The change I could never get over was the utter waste of Empire foot infantry in 6/7e. I'm gald they're back.

Agoz
06-08-2011, 18:58
I miss having more than just the von carsteins represented in the vampire counts book.

The bearded one
06-08-2011, 19:08
Forgive my ignorance, how did 8th particularly nerf Skellies over ghouls?

THE \/ince

Ghouls are just a better choice anyhow. Higher T, higher WS, more attacks, poisoned attacks. The only thing skellies have over ghouls is armour, and not really that much of it. Ghouls don't lose combats as badly as skeletons can lose them (by combination of being more squishy and being less able to inflict kills) and so skeletons suffer significantly by crumbling. 8th edition made combats a lot more bloody with a lot more attacks being thrown around and the WS3 T4 ghouls are able to withstand those better than the WS2 T3 skeletons.

Aluinn
07-08-2011, 02:41
I agree with your caveat that the discussion is relatively pointless, given the total rebalancing that would occur with a new book, but I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion that Necrolords wouldn't have a place in tourney builds.

One important question, though; does this hypothetical Necrolord pick his spells like hero-level Necros do?

Also (since I'm not familiar with points values in the Empire book) are you suggesting that this Necrolord would cost 200 base (Undead special rule + Lvl 4 wizard + Invocation + human stats)? If so, I think it's somewhat misleading to price him at "300 including items" because he wouldn't really need items to warrant inclusion in an army (most likely one led by a hero-level vamp).

Heck, at 200 points, especially if he's picking his spells, it would be worth doubling up on naked Necro lords and not using either of them as your general.

Necromancers can "pick" spells (buy them, actually, so increasing the points cost by +30 to have all whopping 3 of them that are available in this manner); however, I think the assumption would be that no, a Necromancer would use Lore of the Vampires in same manner as Vampires now do, because if he was buying spells like a normal Necromancer he would only have access to 3 spells, all of which really don't require a wizard to be level 4 in order to use. It is a bonus to casting and dispelling, obviously, but a much lesser bonus than other level 4 wizards get just from being level 4 (more spells, without having to pay extra for them on top of what it costs to be a level 4, the chance to choose anyway if they roll doubles, and more powerful spells than the 3 Necromancy spells which are all really quite minor and can't be powered-up).

"Choosing" spells sounds really awesome to people who don't play VC, I have no doubt, but ... it's not. It actually makes Necromancers worse in a lot of ways. If you could just upgrade them to Level 2 instead, which typically cost about the same points as buying all of the Necromancy spells, then they'd be virtually guaranteed to get whichever 2 spells they wanted, if they rolled a 2D3 and got one of the 3 Necromancy spells for each, and would also be better at casting and dispelling. So, the same goes for a level 4. It would just flat out never be worth taking, even in a fluff army, if you gave it the current "Necromancer magic system".

And either way the magic worked, trust me, if a Necromancer Lord couldn't make use of Helm of Commandment (for more than WS3) and could not take Master of the Black Arts (bolded for importance, this is what is making VC magic good right now), you wouldn't see them in competitive builds (which were actually successful). Vampire Counts are leaning on a few crutches right now to prop up an army which otherwise was hit really hard by 8th Ed. changes, and the above are two of them. The others, IMO:

-Ghoul hordes
-Grave Guard horde with great weapons and Banner of the Barrows
-Ethereal units, specifically Wraiths and maybe "powered-up" Coach

So add "caster Vamp with Master of the Black Arts OR psycho combat Vampire of doom", and I think you can say that the rest of the army, aside from those crutches, is pretty darn bad really. The only "okay" things in it are Wight Kings and the other Rare choices (Varghulf, Blood Knights, Terrorgheist now IMO), but I've not included them here because they aren't good enough to hold up an army that is otherwise, well, not at all good.

But we may disagree.

However, I don't need to say that the Necromancer would suck. I kind of think it would, but that's not the point. The point is simply that it would not be overpowered, so to say that you think it might actually, possibly, maybe be viable in tournaments is still no sort of argument for not including one in the list, because as a rules dev you would actually want that to be the case.

Fuzzymoldyork
09-08-2011, 15:17
I am terrified of the idea that the undead would be given a third book. Why would they need that?

We all miss our necromances, but it doesn't seem like that is the direction in which the VC are going in. I think that critique and the loss of designated bloodlines are the two biggest problems with the VC book.

Also, and this is a little off topic, the fact that GW gave us 5 special characters and only one is still alive is ridiculous. The loss of the necromance special characters was a huge loss to that book.

ashc
10-08-2011, 15:27
As said before, the splitting of Chaos in to 3 books makes me :(

The bearded one
10-08-2011, 15:36
As said before, the splitting of Chaos in to 3 books makes me :(

On a related note, it's funny how I've seen everyone moan and whine about 'unfluffy combinations' in storm of magic via the allies rules, but noone thinking to use this to summon daemons for an army of chaos mortals :p

ashc
10-08-2011, 15:37
haha, at least its one way of being able to use your warriors and daemons in one army I guess...!

abdulaapocolyps
11-08-2011, 07:25
Norsca being independent and warhammer quest.
The world seemed bigger and less black and white with Norsca a separate entity,more like dnd.
Also,I loved quest.the fact that a world like warhammer had an action oriented RPG with an automated dungeon mater made the world,again,seem much bigger and less basic than it does now. Warhammer roleplay is another thing entirely,and good,but quest suited WH well I think.

Lord Solar Plexus
11-08-2011, 09:26
I still call my opponent's inability to stop a spell, "Total Power" and not, "Irresistible."

I always will.

Haha, I often still call it "Ultimate Power". That's I believe the term from 2nd ed 40k...

yabbadabba
11-08-2011, 09:27
Haha, I often still call it "Ultimate Power". That's I believe the term from 2nd ed 40k... Wan't it "Ultimate Force"?
;)

Lyynark
11-08-2011, 09:39
Ultimate Force in 40k (2nd) and Total Power in fantasy (4th/5th)

Urgat
11-08-2011, 09:42
I often use total power too, amusing :p My opponents do too, now that I think of it. I kindda mourn the chaos split too, but I liked the undead split, but I do despise how vampire-centric the VC book has become. Rules-wise, I can't get over the new skirmish rules, they stink.

dreamspirit
14-08-2011, 22:50
wow a lot of stuff is missing here lol. I'ma returnee to the 8th, and the thing that I miss the most is psychology definitely. But hey let's face it: dragons have been here for past 7 editions, don't you all think that everyone got used to them by now so they don't need to test for terror anymore? Oh yes, steadfast is a bit annoying. and High Elves, but they always have been.

Imp of High Noon
14-08-2011, 23:14
Just a few things:
I miss undead armies led by Liches! A necromancer who causes fear because he's too awesome to die!

I miss the Witch King of Naggaroth being a powerful sinister and shadowy figure, who it was infered had an unnatural relationship with his mother. Now of course he's a 5000 year old teenager living under his mothers thumb. Less cool.

I'm disappointed with the inability of the hellpit abomination to declare a charge and make use of its ability to cause terror.

I miss skaven characters leading from the back rank, even master moulders can no longer do this.