PDA

View Full Version : Is 8th losing it's luster?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Feefait
28-09-2011, 21:56
When 8th was released I loved it. i thought it finally brought back the fun and excitement I had found lacking in a lot of my games. I have been playing a lot recently and a few things continue to pop up that frustrate me.

1. The randomness:

I am tired of carefully setting up a charge only to roll 1" less than I need to get there. Sure, sometimes I make a charge that is 'impossible' with a good roll but these seem few and far between.

In magic you can never count on an average amount of dice, which makes planning all but impossible. Instead you have to spam wizards and items that may generate more dice.

2. Go big or go home.

The last few games I have been lost have primarily been because my opponents had a big horde. It's kill the horde or... lose. The bunkers, the hordes, the units of 50+... just not what I am into in a game. It takes so much out of the movement and tactics of setting up the right charges.

Spells. This has been discussed ad nauseum, so I will not bring it up again. But those who agree know what I mean.

Steadfast. As a skaven player, well I kinda love it. But it is a bit ridiculous. Sorry, there should be a way to break it.

Am i alone, or is anyone else just getting tired of 8th? I was halfway through a very enjoyable game today but I knew the whole time I could beat the horde of savage orcs, or lose. It was boring. I just kind of lost interest in playing at all because of it. Anyone else running into this?

SunTzu
28-09-2011, 22:03
You are not alone. Only difference between you and I is, I spotted these things from the off so 8th didn't have any lustre to lose, for me.

But a lot of people like it. A lot of people like it a lot. <shrug> Ce la vie, it seems to be "successful" for GW at the moment so there's going to be more of the same. Not much that can be done about it really, either play it or don't. God knows there's enough "8th is great / 8th is crap" threads already. People have mostly formed their opinions by now; some people's opinions may still change, as it sounds like yours is, but for the most part people have made up their mind.

popisdead
28-09-2011, 22:11
I still love it. I suggest you explore some new tactics and styles of play.

The randomness is what makes the game not dull.

MSU isn't dead.

If you don't like Hordes I sure hope you weren't one of the complainers about the Power Scroll. 100 pt wizard removing half a Savage Orc Big Un unit is totally worth it IMO.

There is a way to break Steadfast, it's called forests.

Perhaps it's time to start with an army that has a different play style than Skaven?

The Low King
28-09-2011, 22:20
I find that hordes/big blocks end up being battering rams, they are just thrown around. Its always the smaller combats that decide my games.

Malorian
28-09-2011, 22:58
I still love it.

Still haven't really seen anyone who is pushing it to the extremes so it's still fun.

Sexiest_hero
28-09-2011, 23:24
1. Take the banner of reroll charges. magic generation is still better than 7th. Remember scroll caddies and 21 PD daemons?

2.It's not a skirmish game, Use magic to break down hordes.

3.spells. Don't take death stars or hordes, see #2. Also now every one can super magic. not just skaveen and Tzeench wizards.

4. Woods break steadfast., so does big magic spells. Using leadership lowering abilities help, skaven can get up to -4 on another unit.

try to play your army different, slave spam gets boring, Or pick up a mid tier army. Try a new theme or something..

Doommasters
28-09-2011, 23:35
My Gripes about 8th

1) Magic is too powerful
2) Forced to take a lvl4 to be competitive
3) BSB required every game
4) WE being terrible at skirmishing
5) VC not realistically being able to take a combat lord due to caster requirments + lack of internal balance

Thats it really, 8th edition is pretty good on the whole to be honest. Massive improvment in balance!!

spagg
28-09-2011, 23:37
I love 8th edition. My gaming group is having a lot of fun playing WHF right now.

Malorian
28-09-2011, 23:46
I am tired of being forced into taking a lvl 4 and BSB every game, lets he honest you pretty much need them if you want to be competitive.

If it bugs you so much then try not doing it for a game.

The moment you start challenging yourself your opponents will follow suit.

Why?

Because you now have the power to take away their wins. If they win they only beat a handicapped list, and if they lose there is extra shame in losing to a handicapped list. The only answer is to take a handicapped list too so everything is equal.

This is were the fun starts :)

ihavetoomuchminis
28-09-2011, 23:48
I've seen more warhammer games in the last year than in all the 7th edition. That means something TO ME.

I still love 8th edition too. And the new army books are doing a good job in keeping me interested.

I don't feel forced to take LVL 4 at all. I think people is overreacting and telling the same things they read in the interwebz. I play with two lvl1 wizards and i've won several games. And more important, my army is more reliable. A Lvl4 means nothing when you roll a 4 in the power dice generation.

And nobody is forced to take BSB. We've been playing for years without it and nobody was complaining. It's just that now the BSB is so good that it is a logical inclusion in any army (and not even all armies need it. ItP armies don't. Undead armies don't. Some builds don't.)

Feefait
28-09-2011, 23:48
My skaven are in units if 40. That's as bug as they've ever been and as big as they're going to be. Trends be darned to heck.:) I have run 50 giant rats but that's just cause I made them myself. It's not a regular use unit.

I was unaware steadfast was broken by forests. We don't really use much terrain, but are starting.

Never faced demons. We have a small group so I tend to see the same things. We also never really used power scroll, so make if that what you will.

I lived 8th at first. In some ways I still do. It's done so much right. I'm just feeling a little burnt out by so much rolling and all or nothing units/spells.

Now just to be honest I'm trying to get my opponent from today to reach tomorrow.... I AM an addict. Even if I don't like the crack I will come back for more. Lol

yabbadabba
28-09-2011, 23:50
This is were the fun starts :) Now you should know better than go around saying things like that :eek: ;)

In answer to the OPs title: no.

To reply to the OPs point: house rule. There is nothing saying you can't play it as in the book in some games, and then play it how you think it should be played in some others. A good example is LOS. If you don't think you should be able to see through a forest, just declare the forest as an LOS blocker. Job done.

Hragged
28-09-2011, 23:53
With the new Ogre book having only recently been released, this edition is just getting started! :D

Seriously, 7th was a dull edition IMO, I feel that 8th has put a bit of life back into the game. I generally really like what GW has been doing with the 8th edition army books so far too, this year has been a great year for Fantasy.

tmarichards
28-09-2011, 23:57
The vast majority of games I play are using at least some sort of comp, mainly because playing the game straight out of the box is so imbalanced and badly planned.

papabearshane
29-09-2011, 00:02
Try new armys, if your stagnating with the same oponents try playing eachothers armys or finding more people.

New people + New Tactics.

I love 8th and sure there are times when I get a little board of seeing Life every other Game but its fun to stomp Cheese even more with None Cheese so play on.

WarmbloodedLizard
29-09-2011, 00:16
wholehartedly agree with OP. (although I still find playing 8th fun, it could really use some tweaks in the areas you mentioned. Especially for casual games; tournies usually have some kind of comp to ensure the game is more balanced and fun.)

Okuto
29-09-2011, 01:07
Just need to play against other who play similar to you, for me I just suck it, I don't like it but whatever it's the norm of the game now, hordes and magic till we get something else

Doommasters
29-09-2011, 01:12
If it bugs you so much then try not doing it for a game.

The moment you start challenging yourself your opponents will follow suit.

Why?

Because you now have the power to take away their wins. If they win they only beat a handicapped list, and if they lose there is extra shame in losing to a handicapped list. The only answer is to take a handicapped list too so everything is equal.

This is were the fun starts :)

Yea you are right ;) Just so hard to not take not take a lvl4 and BSB its like an addiction.

papabearshane
29-09-2011, 01:20
Try a No magic list for a bit. Its an eye opener when you win games verse a LvL 4.

Quinzy
29-09-2011, 01:21
When 7th was released I loved it. i thought it finally brought back the fun and excitement I had found lacking in a lot of my games. I have been playing a lot recently and a few things continue to pop up that frustrate me.

1. The unreliability:

I am tired of carefully setting up deployment only to have a unit rendered useless in combat becasue the enemy has a higher initiative. Sure, sometimes I make attacks back against some units, but these seem few and far between.

In magdispelling ic you can never count on an good amount of dice, which makes planning all but impossible. Instead you have to spam wizards and items that may generate more dice.

2. Go small or go home.

The last few games I have been lost have primarily been because my opponents brought MSU. It's kill all the units or... lose. The skirmishers, the hordes, the small units of 5 or 10, just not what I am into in a game. It takes so much out of the movement and tactics of setting up the right charges.

Tarian
29-09-2011, 02:16
Took a Star Dragon lord a bit ago and won with him, because the other team didn't take any big-critter defense, which let him chomp on their units. Expecting 2 Archmages and running into a Dragon instead can definitely mess up a battleplan.

Malorian
29-09-2011, 02:32
Took a Star Dragon lord a bit ago and won with him, because the other team didn't take any big-critter defense, which let him chomp on their units. Expecting 2 Archmages and running into a Dragon instead can definitely mess up a battleplan.

That happened to me at my last fantasy tournament.

Ran into a bloodthirster and was thrown completely off guard.

Gekiganger
29-09-2011, 02:40
I'm still enjoying 8th, as with all multiplayer games the experience is very dependent on the person at the other end of the table, if you're having major gripes with some mechanics, try speaking to the other player and houseruling some things.

If you've grown particularly bored with the whole thing, try more varied scenarios - I love going back to the old (I think it was 5th edition?) battle book and re-tooling scenarios for 8th, and God knows there are better sources than that.

Also - if you're charges are depending on 1 inch, then they need setting up even MORE carefully! ;)

unheilig
29-09-2011, 03:05
Yes. If you keep missing charges by 1", then you are really just not very good at 8th. 7th was a game of angles and range guessing. 8th is a game of probability and risk assessment. The game changed. The skill set changed.

Feefait
29-09-2011, 04:47
Really, my Warlord on Brood Horror than needs to roll 5 and rolls a 4 needs to be set up better? The spider that charges and rolls 2,1,1 and only needed a 6 with swift strider needed a closer eye on movement? lol sorry, but it's not just tactics anymore. Its a lot more randomness in an already random game. That's what I'm not a big fan of. Those missed charges had nothing to do with skill and everything to do with a bad roll.

unheilig
29-09-2011, 05:09
Really, my Warlord on Brood Horror than needs to roll 5 and rolls a 4 needs to be set up better? The spider that charges and rolls 2,1,1 and only needed a 6 with swift strider needed a closer eye on movement? lol sorry, but it's not just tactics anymore. Its a lot more randomness in an already random game. That's what I'm not a big fan of. Those missed charges had nothing to do with skill and everything to do with a bad roll.

and bad rolls never stymied a plan in 7th? C'mon.

Ratbeast
29-09-2011, 05:28
Ive played an entire 3 games and hated it, havent played in over 6 months or something now, just waiting for this edition to be over

Rosstifer
29-09-2011, 06:21
Ive played an entire 3 games and hated it, havent played in over 6 months or something now, just waiting for this edition to be over

Out of mild interest, if you haven't played in 6months and you don't like the edition, why are you posting on a Warhammer forum? :eyebrows:

Confessor_Atol
29-09-2011, 06:37
Nope, my 8th ed works just fine. Have you tried jiggeling the handle?

Sexiest_hero
29-09-2011, 06:49
As a skaven player tell your friendly gamers, you won't take 13th/bell/furnace if they don't take their mega spell or unit. Try playing a Vermin lord and night runner core vs normal orcs and a Ork warboss on wyvern and Giants, co write some fluff, and it will feel more like a fun d&d game of old. Remind each other it's not a tournament, so there is no need to play to kill. Learn to open up your minds, then open up your army books, that will in turn, open up the game!

Gekiganger
29-09-2011, 07:03
Really, my Warlord on Brood Horror than needs to roll 5 and rolls a 4 needs to be set up better? The spider that charges and rolls 2,1,1 and only needed a 6 with swift strider needed a closer eye on movement? lol sorry, but it's not just tactics anymore. Its a lot more randomness in an already random game. That's what I'm not a big fan of. Those missed charges had nothing to do with skill and everything to do with a bad roll.

Rolling a 2-1-1 can't happen THAT often.

I'd argue it's more tactical, you need to have more than one plan in place incase luck doesn't favor you, you need to have tactics that can adapt rather than static ones. Adapting to new situations requires more tactical mastery than setting cavalry up 9 inches away from the opponents goblins.

Only a counter to it 'not being tactics anymore', I'm fully aware the new random factors detracting from the game isn't only your view, I've seen it plenty and half agree with it.

Ratbeast
29-09-2011, 07:08
Out of mild interest, if you haven't played in 6months and you don't like the edition, why are you posting on a Warhammer forum? :eyebrows:

Because i have 10 to 15 grand worth of armies waiting for a new edition

Bodysnatcher
29-09-2011, 07:34
Because i have 10 to 15 grand worth of armies waiting for a new edition

Seems a lot to 'waste' over the experiences of just 3 games.
What size were they, who were your opponents and what were you using?

H33D
29-09-2011, 07:37
A few people around here are giving up warhammer or taking up another hobby to 'complement' fantasy. Some of their reasons are:

-Too expensive. Nicer books costing a whopping $5 more, models being expensive (already look at blood knights), unit sizes increasing on the competitive level requiring more models, as well as the supplementary accessories such as SoM and its models.

-Dislike rules. A few people here (warseer) and here (alaska) complain about mainly: steadfast, randomness, uber spells, magic resistance, hordes, bunkers, level 4 wizards, and cheese.

-Hobby affair. I admit I'm a victim of this myself just receiving a khador battlebox and a gatormen army I too am now enjoying a bit of warmahordes. Sad? A little. I have only ever played warhammer. I am getting into other hobbies because most of my gaming group is as well, but also the models look good and smaller games are playable so the need to invest as much $ isnt there.

Sexiest_hero
29-09-2011, 08:11
Warmahordes, is good for smaller skirmish type guys. I conver cheaper models to ones that cost more money, AND use online action sites, you can get a nace size "fixer up army for 60$ and go conversion happy.

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 08:22
Takes deep breath*

The vast majority of games I play are using at least some sort of comp, mainly because playing the game straight out of the box is so imbalanced and badly planned. I always have a sneaky feeling that comp is really there to make up for people's inability to use divergent thinking when approaching a problem. Its just a feeling because I and many others never worry about it and yet have great games.

Yea you are right ;) Just so hard to not take not take a lvl4 and BSB its like an addiction. NOpe, its really easy not to take those 2. In any case not taking a BSB in 7e just showed how broken it was.

Ive played an entire 3 games and hated it, havent played in over 6 months or something now, just waiting for this edition to be over
A few people around here are giving up warhammer or taking up another hobby to 'complement' fantasy. Some of their reasons are: Right I am going to have an issue with this. I have no problems people taking a break from playing a game - do it myself often enough. Nor do I have problems people getting into oter games systems - wargaming is a beautifully varied world and it all adds to the fun. I DO have problems with people being lazy with their thinking.The vast majority of wargames work on the basis of one person getting into them then spreading the word and recruiting others. 8e isn't a bad game and so many people have returned to WFB because of it - good times. Its no more challenging to play than 6e or 7e - the skill set is different agreed. However you still can play 7e. You can still find someone to play against you. They can still collect an army especially if you have all the books. Having Ģ10-15k's worth of armies sitting around "waiting for the next edition" isn't normal, its petulant. Get off your backsides and do what all the rest of us have to do when a small company comes out with a wicked product, or when 7e was draining our collective fun, and work to make your hobby.

Nope, my 8th ed works just fine. Have you tried jiggeling the handle? lol :D Or turn it off at the plug and count to ten before turning it on again ;)

m1acca1551
29-09-2011, 08:22
Ive played an entire 3 games and hated it, havent played in over 6 months or something now, just waiting for this edition to be over

A fellow aussie??, just out of curiosity, are you letting GW policy regarding pricing "down under" tarnish what is a good system??

For me, i'm loving 8th, a nice system fairly balanced system, has it's faults but house rules can smooth these over.

ihavetoomuchminis
29-09-2011, 08:35
Takes deep breath*
I always have a sneaky feeling that comp is really there to make up for people's inability to use divergent thinking when approaching a problem. Its just a feeling because I and many others never worry about it and yet have great games.
NOpe, its really easy not to take those 2. In any case not taking a BSB in 7e just showed how broken it was.
Right I am going to have an issue with this. I have no problems people taking a break from playing a game - do it myself often enough. Nor do I have problems people getting into oter games systems - wargaming is a beautifully varied world and it all adds to the fun. I DO have problems with people being lazy with their thinking.The vast majority of wargames work on the basis of one person getting into them then spreading the word and recruiting others. 8e isn't a bad game and so many people have returned to WFB because of it - good times. Its no more challenging to play than 6e or 7e - the skill set is different agreed. However you still can play 7e. You can still find someone to play against you. They can still collect an army especially if you have all the books. Having Ģ10-15k's worth of armies sitting around "waiting for the next edition" isn't normal, its petulant. Get off your backsides and do what all the rest of us have to do when a small company comes out with a wicked product, or when 7e was draining our collective fun, and work to make your hobby.
lol :D Or turn it off at the plug and count to ten before turning it on again ;)

Couldn't agree more. You nailed it, yabbadabba

Scythe
29-09-2011, 08:54
Really, my Warlord on Brood Horror than needs to roll 5 and rolls a 4 needs to be set up better? The spider that charges and rolls 2,1,1 and only needed a 6 with swift strider needed a closer eye on movement? lol sorry, but it's not just tactics anymore. Its a lot more randomness in an already random game. That's what I'm not a big fan of. Those missed charges had nothing to do with skill and everything to do with a bad roll.

No, that has nothing to do with setup, it has something to do with your backup plan (or lack thereof). In 8th edition, charges can fail due to dice. What's more, you have a pretty good estimate of the chance it is going to fail. The real question in that case is: what is your plan when your charge fails? Planning for a few possible outcomes requires a lot more skill than just charging in headlong. I'd say you are approaching the problem the wrong way.

SunTzu
29-09-2011, 08:54
Genuinely LOLing at the people saying "woods beat steadfast!!!". Here's the thing: your opponent never has to move his steadfast unit into a wood if he doesn't want to.

kyussinchains
29-09-2011, 09:11
I think that like any edition of the game it's now showing a few bits where the paint has chipped, some rules were perhaps not playtested enough and a year+ worth of thousands of people playing thousands of games has highlighted it.....

Some people like the 'demolition derby' aspect of big spells and massive units (made even more ridiculous by SoM) and that is great, but a fair few people do not.

I would say that steadfast is probably the rule that has caused the most complaints (especially around my area) and the sight of 60+ slaves tarpitting chosen, swordmasters, knights and monsters is very common..... people complain about the dark elf pendant lord, when for 120 points each you can have multiple slave speedbumps which can tie up 500+ points of almost anything for turn after turn....

I'm not saying that the rule should be removed, however I can see the frustration with some people, throw queek and a BSB into the mix and even if you flank the slaves, they're testing on a re-rollable LD8......

I'm not keen on the random charges, but it's not a deal breaker for me, I really dislike the new magic system, simply because they have tied miscasts and irresistable force together, now there is no worry about throwing 6 dice at a spell and hoping for the double 6, no real downside, sure your wizard can go nuclear, but if he does, it's because you got the big template purple sun off and nuked the enemy too......

some of the minor quibbles can easily be house ruled, TLoS and mystical terrain for example, need not be played, and it really improves the game

I think it's marginally a better game than 7th edition, but it's by no means perfect, it just has holes in different places

Tayrod
29-09-2011, 12:23
Still haven't really seen anyone who is pushing it to the extremes so it's still fun.

Strange, I could have sworn I saw you in a youtube battle report recently facing off against a 60 man strong Ogre bull unit.. :P

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 12:29
Strange, I could have sworn I saw you in a youtube battle report recently facing off against a 60 man strong Ogre bull unit.. :P Thats just the regular Games Night crowd at his local FLGS.

Rosstifer
29-09-2011, 12:30
Strange, I could have sworn I saw you in a youtube battle report recently facing off against a 60 man strong Ogre bull unit.. :P

At 10,000pts I would have no issue with that :D

Spiney Norman
29-09-2011, 12:34
Really, my Warlord on Brood Horror than needs to roll 5 and rolls a 4 needs to be set up better? The spider that charges and rolls 2,1,1 and only needed a 6 with swift strider needed a closer eye on movement? lol sorry, but it's not just tactics anymore. Its a lot more randomness in an already random game. That's what I'm not a big fan of. Those missed charges had nothing to do with skill and everything to do with a bad roll.

Isolated bad examples happen from time to time, but you're not seriously telling me that you ALWAYS roll 1s and 2s for charge range (if you are then you really need some new dice). Probability will mess you up sometimes, others it will pleasantly surprise you.

Urgat
29-09-2011, 13:11
Answering to the title:
Is it? Well, I've only played a few games, and then... haven't played for over 6 months. If anything, a game of 8th ed is shining bright like the Holy Grail for me, right now.

IcedCrow
29-09-2011, 13:22
Nope. I love the edition. There are a few niggling annoyances that I've already discussed elsewhere but other then that, as a whole, I prefer it.

Having to have backup plans and knowing that my moves aren't 100% guaranteed is something I actually prefer as it seems more akin to a real combat where nothing is guaranteed... not even if you are within 6" of the enemy and your charge distances is 8 ;)

logan054
29-09-2011, 13:32
I don't feel forced to take LVL 4 at all. I think people is overreacting and telling the same things they read in the interwebz. I play with two lvl1 wizards and i've won several games. And more important, my army is more reliable. A Lvl4 means nothing when you roll a 4 in the power dice generation.

Well I'm certainly one to normally say don't listen to the interwebz, I was actually running a just a lvl2 for a while and doing pretty well, I then played against someone who just had lvl2 while trying out a lvl4. Guess what happened? I completely shut down their magic phase every single turn and then won because I dominated in the magic and CC phase. last tournament I went to I lost or won most games because of my wizard blowing up or killing theirs. Magical sadly have a bigger strange hold on the game, it has and always will be the only phase that you have to take part in so you can win, you can avoid most other phases and still win.


And nobody is forced to take BSB. We've been playing for years without it and nobody was complaining. It's just that now the BSB is so good that it is a logical inclusion in any army (and not even all armies need it. ItP armies don't. Undead armies don't. Some builds don't.)

Sad thing is now while you don't have to take it 99% of time you are stupid not to, still good in ItP armies, rerolling break tests is very very good or any items that require leadership tests.

Toshiro
29-09-2011, 14:07
I love 8th with exception of some of the spells :)

IcedCrow
29-09-2011, 14:10
I've always taken a BSB. The benefits of it are just too awesome to not have one even in 7th where it was just break checks. Now that it's every leadership check that gets re-rolled, it is a must.

As to always having a level 4... I've never taken one yet. And refuse to do so because that's not something that I do. I win as much as I lose and most of my opponents only take level 4s due to intrawebz wizdom.

Okuto
29-09-2011, 14:22
a BSB just looks plain cool too....love showing off my army's big banner....esp for orcs. In terms of magic I don't every take one except for TK, I find magic well..it's not my cup of tea

eldargal
29-09-2011, 14:36
No, it is still as lustrous as a Witch Elves hair. 7th edition was abominable, I actually stopped playing it for a couple of years before 8th. 8th isn't perfect, but it is excellent. It brought me back to WFB, it sparked more peopel in my group to play WFB including some that swore they would never touch it ('Why would I sit there and move units around to 8th of an inch accuracy and then have my whole army slaughtered when I'm an 8th of an inch off, when I could play 40k').

I always take a BSB on principle but I don't take Lv4s much.

Karak Norn Clansman
29-09-2011, 14:48
Not for me it hasn't. 6th edition was, on the large, well balanced but a bit tawdry, at least with the armies I played. 7th edition brought some more fun to the game, but it also brought deathstars and point bunkers in the form of hard-hitting elite units led by heroes with wacky magic items. 8th edition is the best so far in my experience, although I'd have liked to keep the guessing for artillery. The point bunkers that exist are mainly hordes of common infantry as opposed to medium-sized units of Chosen or Shades, which at least feel more right.

Falkman
29-09-2011, 14:49
Definitely lost it's luster, yeah.
8th edition coupled with Finecast is what finally drove me away from GW, which I guess was nice of them, since it helped me discover much better games.

Okuto
29-09-2011, 15:10
luckily our new plastic heroes aren't in finecast...though it still doesn't change the fact we are getting plastic mono pose models for near same price as the old metal mono pose heroes....don't get me wrong I love the new DE soc and nurgle chaos lord but the complete lack of part options kinda sucks.


Though with 8th we just need all the armies up to speed and we should be alright, one of the main reasons 6th was glorious(IMO) was all the armies more or less were up to date. Some of the 7th edition books are kinda wacky in 8th edition.

Though I admit I'm a bit annoyed ogre kingdoms kinda blantly made the slaughtermaster a no brainer...

Emissary
29-09-2011, 15:14
I've really enjoyed 8th edition. Other then the fact that you can't remove steadfast, I haven't seen much that I dislike. Nobody really overpowers their spells and around here it's pretty even sailing. Certainly much better then the crapfest of 7th.

Okuto
29-09-2011, 15:16
very much so, just need a group of players who know restraint

Malorian
29-09-2011, 15:39
Strange, I could have sworn I saw you in a youtube battle report recently facing off against a 60 man strong Ogre bull unit.. :P

That isn't extreme, especially at 10k ;)


No, when I first knew the rules for 8th the very first thing that came to mind was "Damn, all people are going to do is take as few units as possible and make them so massive that you could never hope to wipe them out."

We're talking about units of 600 night goblins, not 100.

Luckily other than in one game I have never seen anyone go there, and I'm certainly not going to be the one to start it.

Eternus
29-09-2011, 16:50
Genuinely LOLing at the people saying "woods beat steadfast!!!". Here's the thing: your opponent never has to move his steadfast unit into a wood if he doesn't want to.

Tosh and twoddle says I!

The thing that really balances 8th edition wonderfully is a nine letter word that starts with some thought and ends in a really cool dramatic battle - Scenarios. Because 8th edition doesn't have to simply be a line up and fight game, and Scenarios have been firmly concreted into the heart of the game, it's stopped being List-hammer.

You don't think your opponent has to send his horde into the woods? What if the temple you're trying to control is in a clearing, in the middle of some woods? Making people do stuff that's outside their comfort zone, making people to exciting things with their army, making a judgement and then trusting to the belief that you've made the right call, with some luck thrown in, is what 8th is all about.

logan054
29-09-2011, 16:58
You don't think your opponent has to send his horde into the woods? What if the temple you're trying to control is in a clearing, in the middle of some woods? Making people do stuff that's outside their comfort zone, making people to exciting things with their army, making a judgement and then trusting to the belief that you've made the right call, with some luck thrown in, is what 8th is all about.

Last I tried doing something like that I was told we didn't need those silly things... Have to say that was one of the major issues with the last tournament I went, pitched battle every bloody game.

Chaos and Evil
29-09-2011, 17:01
You are not alone. Only difference between you and I is, I spotted these things from the off so 8th didn't have any lustre to lose, for me.
Same here, really.

raymon
29-09-2011, 17:04
Well I think its still great. Had a battle this week of 2500 tomb kings vs dwarfs. We rolled Blood and Glory. It was mad fun! Constructs popping up from the sand, miners coming in, long beards starting out as scouts and breaching through to kill the Hierophant. Rocks, fire, melee, outflanking chariots. If only my lord killed his prince, all had been won. one ward save it all came down to. The fighting is gritty, randomness does not stop you from using tactics or strategy. You have to think on your feet. It is more fun and engaging then 7th in my opinion.

IcedCrow
29-09-2011, 17:22
Tosh and twoddle says I!

The thing that really balances 8th edition wonderfully is a nine letter word that starts with some thought and ends in a really cool dramatic battle - Scenarios. Because 8th edition doesn't have to simply be a line up and fight game, and Scenarios have been firmly concreted into the heart of the game, it's stopped being List-hammer.

You don't think your opponent has to send his horde into the woods? What if the temple you're trying to control is in a clearing, in the middle of some woods? Making people do stuff that's outside their comfort zone, making people to exciting things with their army, making a judgement and then trusting to the belief that you've made the right call, with some luck thrown in, is what 8th is all about.

The competitive tournament players I know won't play those type of games for that very reason.

AmaroK
29-09-2011, 17:26
That isn't extreme, especially at 10k ;)


No, when I first knew the rules for 8th the very first thing that came to mind was "Damn, all people are going to do is take as few units as possible and make them so massive that you could never hope to wipe them out."

We're talking about units of 600 night goblins, not 100.

Luckily other than in one game I have never seen anyone go there, and I'm certainly not going to be the one to start it.

600 night goblins is not pushing it, it is just too much, and deserves as much templates/vortexes as you could throw at it. :wtf: But on a serious note, a maximum size of the units in their Army Books entries wouldnīt hurt.

loveless
29-09-2011, 17:30
Well, it's still superior to 6th and the debacle that was 7th, so I don't see any of the shine wearing off.

8th edition is very close to my ideal for a Fantasy wargame. Storm of Magic actually pushed it a bit closer with its objective-based power-ups.

Hell, my only complaints are either price-related or that GW is putting out too much cool stuff for me to focus on one thing :D

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 17:33
But on a serious note, a maximum size of the units in their Army Books entries wouldnīt hurt. Its not needed for the vast majority of units. Only unbreakable units need an upper limit, or you would be there all day.

eldargal
29-09-2011, 17:36
Well competitive tournament play is one of the problems. The WFB ruleset is designed for fun, not competitive play. By all means use it for something it wasn't intended for but don't go whining about it when it doesn't work out (not aiming this at you IcedCrow).

As far as I can see most of the complaints about 8th stem from people being unable or unwilling to adapt or just looking for another excuse to whinge about Games Workshop.


The competitive tournament players I know won't play those type of games for that very reason.

Now with SoM WFB is finally about fantasy battles, armies backed by monsters and magic.

Falkman
29-09-2011, 17:48
The WFB ruleset is designed for fun
Being designed "for fun" isn't an excuse for sloppy writing and big balance problems. By the very meaning of the word fun, the game should strive to be balanced, since it's never fun to be playing the army that doesn't really stand a chance.

Morax
29-09-2011, 17:49
I guess it is just me that has awesome tournament organizers. 3 round tournies around me are garenteed to see Dawn Attack, Blood and Glory, and The Watchtower as your three senerios. Also every table has a minimum of 8 peices of terrain on them. Takes your carefully planned list hammer and shoves it back in your face.

As to 8th's inherent "problems".
Magic isn't overpowered if you are running MSU. Yeah you got off your dwellers but I lose 5 halberdiers because of it...ok.
Hordes aren't overpowered if you take...a wizard. Ahh I see you have spent 1800 points on a unit of 60 bulls, say hello to the enfeebling foe and dwellers bellow.
MSU isn't overpowered if you take a couple of decent fighting units. You units will just die to a horde of troops walking across the field.

8th is a kinda rock/paper/scissors mash that gives you the ability to have any and all of the three in your list. Trying to focus on one will lead an opponent to throw out the other and smash your face in. Just as in 7th I have found that a balanced approach will in the end preform better.

eldargal
29-09-2011, 17:55
I never said it was. But I dispute your implication that the 8th ruleset is imbalanced and that it is sloppily written. I also dispute that a poorly written rulebook makes for a game which is not fun, see Dystopian Wars. A lot of problems with the way the rules are written and set out but it is still a fun game once you learn the rules. Just like 8th edition, once you stop playing like it is 7th it is great fun. The problem with 8th is that some of the army books are bordering on obsolesence, and that is not a fault with the core ruleset, that is another issue entirely.


Being designed "for fun" isn't an excuse for sloppy writing and big balance problems. By the very meaning of the word fun, the game should strive to be balanced, since it's never fun to be playing the army that doesn't really stand a chance.

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 17:58
Being designed "for fun" isn't an excuse for sloppy writing and big balance problems. By the very meaning of the word fun, the game should strive to be balanced, since it's never fun to be playing the army that doesn't really stand a chance. Then can I ask you a few questions?

1) why are you involved with GW core games when they have had a consistent history of "sloppy writing and big balance problems"?
2) If you want a GW game with GW IP that fulfills all the needs of balance, clarity and competitiveness do you play Epic or Warmaster or LotR? If not, why not?
3) In nearly 30 odd years of being involved with GW and its products the only time I have experienced "sloppy writing and big balance problems" being an issue has been with the rise of the tournament sector and the internet, both of which represent a relatively small slice of the WFB and 40K community. If thousands of people have been happy enough with "sloppy writing and big balance problems" not to desert it at the first sign of a better system (and therefore by inference sink GW long before now), what makes you think that GW should change this design philosophy just to satisfy a minority customer base who still play the games anyway?

AmaroK
29-09-2011, 18:08
Its not needed for the vast majority of units. Only unbreakable units need an upper limit, or you would be there all day.

I agree on the unbreakable units, but the limit should be extended to other units because of the point sink/denial strategies that come from the victory points conditions of this edition. The possibility of fielding 600 night goblins or 100 chosen (and garrison them in a watchtower :P) sounds a bit over the top, and I really hope I never have to face them in any of my games (so far I have not, thanks God).

Urgat
29-09-2011, 18:14
Well competitive tournament play is one of the problems.

What problem? Why should casual players care if tournament players are not happy? I look at my minis and my rulebook, and it seems to be doing fine, whether they're happy or not :p And as it happens, GW has always followed this line of thoughts, so... no problem? ;)

Falkman
29-09-2011, 18:16
why are you involved with GW core games when they have had a consistent history of "sloppy writing and big balance problems"?
I'm not, anymore. I finally had enough of their ineptitude and moved to better games.

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 18:19
I agree on the unbreakable units, but the limit should be extended to other units because of the point sink/denial strategies that come from the victory points conditions of this edition. The possibility of fielding 600 night goblins or 100 chosen (and garrison them in a watchtower :P) sounds a bit over the top, and I really hope I never have to fac e them in any of my games (so far I have not, thanks God). I think you can only garrison a unit of 20 in the watchtower? Anyway..

The problem is you start getting to the point of diminishing returns. 600 Night Goblins aren't anymore productive than 100. The saffer the same weakness as any deathstar unit - poor manouveurability, massive footprint, ease of targetting and the big one massive points allocation relative to elsewhere (so when the unit goes it leaves a huge hole not only in the line but available resources). In addition it doesn't make their LD any better. Chosen are a slightly different kettle of fish but again things like Lore of Metal, Occums Razor etc could make that unit vanish very, very quickly and then you have the same issues as above.

Its back to the 7th ed one-trick-pony army. Great until you come across someone who knows how to deal with it then it is a liability. And it matters less in bigger games because opposite you is someone who is mentally prepared for such a possibility.

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 18:20
I'm not, anymore. I finally had enough of their ineptitude and moved to better games. The with the greatest respect why are you here, what do you hope to achieve and why should we, who enjoy GW product, pay attention?

Falkman
29-09-2011, 18:23
The with the greatest respect why are you here, what do you hope to achieve and why should we, who enjoy GW product, pay attention?
Because the thread asked if 8th was losing it's luster, and I answered that yes, I think so (hence why I quit). perfectly fine answer to the question at hand.


Just like 8th edition, once you stop playing like it is 7th it is great fun.
In my opinion that's when it stopped being fun. At the beginning of 8th edition when people still played with their diverse armies and normal-sized units that they used in 7th ed the game was much better than 7th ed.
When people started reducing the game to a few massive units just slugging towards each other and throwing spells it went downhill really fast.

AmaroK
29-09-2011, 18:23
Well competitive tournament play is one of the problems. The WFB ruleset is designed for fun, not competitive play. By all means use it for something it wasn't intended for but don't go whining about it when it doesn't work out (not aiming this at you IcedCrow).

As far as I can see most of the complaints about 8th stem from people being unable or unwilling to adapt or just looking for another excuse to whinge about Games Workshop.


Being designed "for fun" isn't an excuse for sloppy writing and big balance problems. By the very meaning of the word fun, the game should strive to be balanced, since it's never fun to be playing the army that doesn't really stand a chance.

Well, as far as I can see, people tend to think that "competitive tournament play" and "balanced" means that A + B will allways become C. On 7th you could forsee many games just having a look on the lists. On 8th, the randomness of some mechanics (not only charges or magic, but also scenarios and terrain) have make it not so easy.

Also, if you have a look on the 8th edition army books, people agree that they are more "balanced" overall but actually there isnīt a single powerbuild and not so many units you can say they are really not worth their points. More possibilities, more uncertainties.

So maybe it can be possible the game is now more balanced because of being more random/open to variations? I donīt know, but with the new books I have this feeling. Of course, there is always a place for improving, but I wouldnīt say the 8th ruleset isnīt made for tournament playing, just it is not made for the tournament playing (A + B = C) we have seen previously.

eldargal
29-09-2011, 18:23
Because they whinge and moan on the internet and might put people off who wuold otherwise enjoy 8th edition. That is a problem in my opinion.


What problem? Why should casual players care if tournament players are not happy? I look at my minis and my rulebook, and it seems to be doing fine, whether they're happy or not :p And as it happens, GW has always followed this line of thoughts, so... no problem? ;)

Lord Solar Plexus
29-09-2011, 18:30
1. The randomness:

I am tired of carefully setting up a charge only to roll 1" less than I need to get there. Sure, sometimes I make a charge that is 'impossible' with a good roll but these seem few and far between.


Those do not only seem to be few, they actually are since players are less inclined to declare charges on far away targets.

As to those other charges, it sounds as if you're having a streak of bad luck. Overall, failed charges should happen to your opponents just as often, assuming they set them up as carefully as you.



In magic you can never count on an average amount of dice, which makes planning all but impossible. Instead you have to spam wizards and items that may generate more dice.


Nobody I know spams wizards or said items or both, and nobody is forced to do that. Of course you can count on the average amount of dice coming up more often than not, and of course you need to plan for emergencies. I've found that it doesn't pay to bet everything on having enough PD, especially as even then you can fail a roll or encounter a dispel scroll.



2. Go big or go home.

The last few games I have been lost have primarily been because my opponents had a big horde. It's kill the horde or... lose. The bunkers, the hordes, the units of 50+... just not what I am into in a game. It takes so much out of the movement and tactics of setting up the right charges.


That is a grave misconception. Such deathstars might win some games but you do not have to kill them to a man. It is a tactical and movement challenge to mislead and divert these big units. Being resilient is an excellent capability and does in no way as you wrongly assume take anything away.



Spells. This has been discussed ad nauseum, so I will not bring it up again.


Good. Then I will not bring them up either.



Steadfast. As a skaven player, well I kinda love it. But it is a bit ridiculous. Sorry, there should be a way to break it.


Well, there are but if you still haven't figured them out I'm not sure what to say.

Falkman
29-09-2011, 18:30
Also, if you have a look on the 8th edition army books, people agree that they are more "balanced" overall but actually there isnīt a single powerbuild and not so many units you can say they are really not worth their points.
People keep saying that, but visiting a tournament it becomes quite obvious that everyone who does well with a certain army plays about the same list.
Some armies might have two different lists you see, but very rarely more than that.
And it's still the same armies up top as in 7th ed, so the balance fixing that many were hoping for in 8th ed didn't really happen. Dark elves still dominate, Ogres (old book at least, haven't seen the new in action yet) still sucked.

AmaroK
29-09-2011, 18:30
I think you can only garrison a unit of 20 in the watchtower? Anyway..

The problem is you start getting to the point of diminishing returns. 600 Night Goblins aren't anymore productive than 100. The saffer the same weakness as any deathstar unit - poor manouveurability, massive footprint, ease of targetting and the big one massive points allocation relative to elsewhere (so when the unit goes it leaves a huge hole not only in the line but available resources). In addition it doesn't make their LD any better. Chosen are a slightly different kettle of fish but again things like Lore of Metal, Occums Razor etc could make that unit vanish very, very quickly and then you have the same issues as above.

Its back to the 7th ed one-trick-pony army. Great until you come across someone who knows how to deal with it then it is a liability. And it matters less in bigger games because opposite you is someone who is mentally prepared for such a possibility.

You can only garrison a unit of 20 in the watchtower when you get the first turn (and only basic troops) but nothing stops you from entering a bigger unit in next turns. Anyways, it was more of a joke of some extreme ideas that pop out in the internet wisdom (folded fortress + deathstars cheese builds).

On the rest I pretty much agree on all that you said, but I just donīt want to face such lists even if I could beat them, because they are boring as hell and can ruin my fun. Anyways, I havenīt found extreme units in 8th so far, but hearing stories from a friend facing in a tournament a 60+ dark elf shadesī deathstar in 7th makes me worry sometimes, thats all ;)

AmaroK
29-09-2011, 18:39
People keep saying that, but visiting a tournament it becomes quite obvious that everyone who does well with a certain army plays about the same list.
Some armies might have two different lists you see, but very rarely more than that.
And it's still the same armies up top as in 7th ed, so the balance fixing that many were hoping for in 8th ed didn't really happen. Dark elves still dominate, Ogres (old book at least, haven't seen the new in action yet) still sucked.

I was talking about the balance of 8th army books between each other (you may add beastmen book also here, but that is arguable). I have seen many debates about the arachnarock being viable or not, or serpent riders in the TK army, the sphynx... Of course there are better builds than others, but at least now most of the choices are not directly shooting yourself in your foot, but more about a matter of taste or list concept/playing style.

But one thing is for sure, there is not an Army Book creep happening right now, which makes the same armies stay on top. And I think itīs the right way to go, lets hope this trend stays for the "top armies" when their new books come (the incoming Vampire Counts book is going to be a good test for this, I hope they are not the Grey Knights of Fantasy as they were in 7th).

IcedCrow
29-09-2011, 18:47
When the top armies get an 8th edition book I can guarantee there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth from the players who take the nerf stick about how 8th sucks and killed the game for them because their crutches were removed.

Trustey
29-09-2011, 18:49
I'm seeing a lot of "I don't like it because I'm forced to powergame and pick the statistically best options like bsb, lvl 4, horde, etc."

If this is your play style then nothing really changed from the last edition did it? You're still just playing to win but with different rules. What didn't you like about 7th that you were "forced" to do?

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 18:56
Because the thread asked if 8th was losing it's luster, and I answered that yes, I think so (hence why I quit). perfectly fine answer to the question at hand. Then why didn't you just carry on playing 7e?

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 19:00
You can only garrison a unit of 20 in the watchtower when you get the first turn (and only basic troops) but nothing stops you from entering a bigger unit in next turns. That's dangerous thinking mate, I suggest you don't keep it up :shifty:

On the rest I pretty much agree on all that you said, but I just donīt want to face such lists even if I could beat them, because they are boring as hell and can ruin my fun. Anyways, I havenīt found extreme units in 8th so far, but hearing stories from a friend facing in a tournament a 60+ dark elf shadesī deathstar in 7th makes me worry sometimes, thats all ;) I once had to face a 1500pt army consisting of Hobgoblah Khan and his wolf boys - one unit, one character - with a Dark Elf Army. Got totally mashed. These things come a long and you just learn to roll with the punches. as I said its one trick pony time.

DeathlessDraich
29-09-2011, 19:04
No lustre lost because 8th never had any lustre. :)
So many good players gave up Fantasy when 8th ed was introduced - the main reason isn't Steadfast or charge distance or Magic but ...

8th was strategically and tactically not cerebral enough - generalship became simplified, subtle tactical manoeuvres were lost and there was no real skillful strategic thrust and counter thrust present in 6th and 7th ed.
8th became less attractive when the broad gap between good players and novices shrunk.

To quote a hyperbole from a vet gamer who left - "The game moved closer to tic tac toe" :D

I'm just ploughing on but whenever I play a vet gamer we invariably stop after turn 4 and roll a few dice just to verify the probable outcomes because there are no more subtle moves left and the game would degenerate to effectively, rolling dice.

Sexiest_hero
29-09-2011, 19:05
Somebody mentioned 8th doesn't have the balanced armies of 7th, I almost did a spit take. As yabbadabba said you can always play 7th edition, and get face stomped by daemons. As for me I'd rather not have one stupid Eagle keep my army from moving while the elves back up and stay 1/8 inch out of charge range.

Lord Solar Plexus
29-09-2011, 19:06
Then why didn't you just carry on playing 7e?

On his own? It may be just me but the answer seems more than obvious... :confused:

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 19:13
On his own? It may be just me but the answer seems more than obvious... :confused: That's called lazy thinking.

I'll keep banging on about this until the end of days. This is how most wargames work - WoM, a few keeping things going and spreading the word, promoting, playing and refining until it catches on.

If this site is anything to go by, there is a significant number of people who don't like 8e and want to carry on playing 7e, and chances are there are some near anyone. You don't need GW to spoonfeed you so its a simple case of getting out there and banging the drum.

To have stopped playing entirely just because there is a different product on the market is .... weill its consumerist petulance to be honest.

Falkman
29-09-2011, 19:17
Somebody mentioned 8th doesn't have the balanced armies of 7th, I almost did a spit take. As yabbadabba said you can always play 7th edition, and get face stomped by daemons.
Daemons and Dark elves stomp face just as much in 8th, that didn't change. Sure, you might win against them slightly more now due to the game being more random (but winning due to randomness isnīt very fun), but they're still much better armies than everyone else.


To have stopped playing entirely just because there is a different product on the market is .... weill its consumerist petulance to be honest.
When that different product is easier to get into, requires me to paint fewer models (the absolute worst part of Warhammer is having to paint loads of same-same looking models) and is way more fun to boot, why should I keep playing?

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 19:20
When that different product is easier to get into, requires me to paint fewer models (the absolute worst part of Warhammer is having to paint loads of same-same looking models) and is way more fun to boot, why should I keep playing? No, you have missed the point. If you liked 7e better then carry on playing it. To have stopped playing altogether is nonsense.

Falkman
29-09-2011, 19:25
No, you have missed the point. If you liked 7e better then carry on playing it. To have stopped playing altogether is nonsense.
No one around here plays 7th edition. My biggest gripe with GW, and the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak, is the fact that their price rises finally reached a level where I don't feel it's worth the money anymore. That coupled with the Finecast spectacle finally pushed me over the edge to quit GW.

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 19:28
No one around here plays 7th edition. My biggest gripe with GW, and the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak, is the fact that their price rises finally reached a level where I don't feel it's worth the money anymore. That coupled with the Finecast spectacle finally pushed me over the edge to quit GW. So it wasn't 8e then?

Besides all of the above are no reason to quit playing. Quit buying direct yes but not to quit playing, but I suppose in the end people will justify any excuse.

Falkman
29-09-2011, 19:30
So it wasn't 8e then?

Besides all of the above are no reason to quit playing. Quit buying direct yes but not to quit playing, but I suppose in the end people will justify any excuse.
It was a combination of several things, 8th edition was one of them.

I find it fun that you seem to be trying to justify any excuse to keep playing the game.
I'm not trying to "justify any excuse" to quit Warhammer (why should I need to excuse myself for that anyway?), I just tried out Warmachine, and found it to be more fun than Warhammer, thus I will play Warmachine. Simple as that.
I don't have unlimited time to play, so when I play a game I want to play the one that brings me the most joy, and that's not Warhammer anymore. So why should I hang onto a game that I don't really enjoy anymore then?

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 19:37
I find it fun that you seem to be trying to justify any excuse to keep playing the game. I think its stupid that people find something they enjoy, put in some investment and then quit because its no longer fashionable or easy.

I tried out Warmachine, and found it to be more fun than Warhammer, thus I will play Warmachine. Simple as that. Fine. One of the joys of wargaming is that it is a varied market. I play quite a few wargames myself, some of which have been out of print for a long time now.

I don't have unlimited time to play, so when I play a game I want to play the one that brings me the most joy, and that's not Warhammer anymore. So why should I hang onto a game that I don't really enjoy anymore then? No one is saying you should. So if you enjoyed playing 7e, why stop playing or trying to play?

Malorian
29-09-2011, 19:41
I tried out Hordes, found it was fun, and now I play both :D

loveless
29-09-2011, 19:45
I think its stupid that people find something they enjoy, put in some investment and then quit because its no longer fashionable or easy.

No one is saying you should. So if you enjoyed playing 7e, why stop playing or trying to play?

Inspired by the above, I have to say that I never did understand why a group would "quit" a game due to an edition change. If you liked the previous edition, what's stopping you from playing it?

I honestly can't see why anyone would want to play 7th, but if you did manage to enjoy it, no one is forcing you to play 8th (though not everyone is going to want to play 7th, trust me).

A non-8th-fan could always go play a historical, too - same crazy RnF moving without any of that fun fantasy stuff like magic and monsters to get in your way :p

Zond
29-09-2011, 19:47
I don't know if 8th edition lost its lustre, but I didn't enjoy the rock/paper/scissors feel of the game. The push for bigger game sizes also put me off as well. I just felt that I had more fun with 7th.

I have no wish to try and drum up activity for 7th with my friends, especially since we're having fun with other things, none of us really enjoy wargaming without active support for the most part and we lack space to pull most of it off anyway. I guess it makes me a lazy, childish consumer, but I'm happy.

Maybe the Rackham look of the Skaven or a smaller sized army will draw me back in, something I entertain every third month or so. Maybe when my wallet gets fatter and my house gets bigger.

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 19:49
Right, my goats well and truly up now, so everyone be warned :eyebrows:

none of us really enjoy wargaming without active support for the most part What do you mean by "active support"?

and we lack space to pull most of it off anyway. But you have managed fine so far?

Zond
29-09-2011, 19:57
Right, my goats well and truly up now, so everyone be warned :eyebrows:
What do you mean by "active support"?
But you have managed fine so far?

This is going to get all confrontational, and it's silly. I don't understand why it's wrong to let a game go, but alright.

Active support? Well, I guess, the game is in print, the company acknowledges its existence, timely faqs, new models etc etc. I know that you can argue all these things still exist in regards to previous editions of Games Workshop games, but to be honest the game has moved on. Who knows, maybe I'll jump back in another edition? Right now I'm happy enough to have my army in a storage case or two, with some models sitting around as ornamentation.

As for space? We struggle. We have one table we've cobled together 4' x 4', and we physically don't have room for anything bigger at any of our houses. We just skirmish on it, use it for cups of tea, and occasionally lose board game pieces or rpg books amidst the ruined buildings. My friends and I have varied interests, and those other interests clash with any local miniature club times, so we continue on as is.

Put the goat down.

Falkman
29-09-2011, 20:04
I think its stupid that people find something they enjoy, put in some investment and then quit because its no longer fashionable or easy.
Fine. One of the joys of wargaming is that it is a varied market. I play quite a few wargames myself, some of which have been out of print for a long time now.
No one is saying you should. So if you enjoyed playing 7e, why stop playing or trying to play?
I didn't quit it because of it no longer being fashionable or easy, but it's nice to be accused of being shallow just because I no longer want to play Warhammer. :eyebrows:

As I said, no one around here plays 7th ed, they're quite happy with 8th ed.
And I enjoy Warmachine more than I've enjoyed any edition of Warhammer anyway, hence I'm gonna put my energy into playing that.

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 20:21
This is going to get all confrontational, and it's silly. I don't understand why it's wrong to let a game go, but alright. Nothing wrong with letting agame go, I am just getting a bit fed up with people blaming GW for their own issues and their mistaken belief that they need to be spoonfed.

Active support? Well, I guess, the game is in print, the company acknowledges its existence, timely faqs, new models etc etc. I know that you can argue all these things still exist in regards to previous editions of Games Workshop games, but to be honest the game has moved on. Who knows, maybe I'll jump back in another edition? Right now I'm happy enough to have my army in a storage case or two, with some models sitting around as ornamentation. See, that's fine. You don't need the support at all. In addition the game hasn't moved on for you, it can stay just where it is. However, using this as an opportunity to look around and try new things - more than happy with that, we all do it! If we didn't do that there would only be one product on the market :D

As for space? We struggle. We have one table we've cobled together 4' x 4', and we physically don't have room for anything bigger at any of our houses. We just skirmish on it, use it for cups of tea, and occasionally lose board game pieces or rpg books amidst the ruined buildings. My friends and I have varied interests, and those other interests clash with any local miniature club times, so we continue on as is. This doesn't stop you playing though as you have managed to date.

Put the goat down. Its my goat :p

Seriously I don't have any problem with people looking around, trying new things, putting other products on indefinite hold etc. That's all part of being a wargamer. I also don't have a problem with people preferring old editions of games - I prefer Space Marine to Epic Armageddon for example. But to dump everything in a fit of pique just because a company changes a product and it need not end your gaming, and then blame the company seems to me just a bit too much .

Souppilgrim
29-09-2011, 20:32
...I also don't have a problem with people preferring old editions of games - I prefer Space Marine to Epic Armageddon for example.

Oh you are a man after my own heart. Space Marine was my first GW game (odd I know). Hell, I even like Epic Armageddon, but the old space marine just gets my fiddlies all excited.

Zond
29-09-2011, 20:34
It's not ending my gaming in any way. I played a myraid of games before I picked up a GW model, and I continue to do so after I've put one down during this extended hiatus.

We tried playing our regular sized armies on this small table, and it doesn't work. As we don't like the feel of scaling down, and inquiries at the store weren't promising (and to be honest they had less space than us! :p ) we moved on to other games, or back to old favourites.

I don't need to be spoonfed, but I like to be. I enjoy a variety of activities, and within the wargaming hobby as a whole I primarily enjoy painting, so when gaming I like to have a well supported up to date game. GW physically hasn't stopped me using their models, just influenced my desires. I'm not blaming them, I'm acknowledging their move in one direction and politely expressing my desire to take a different fork in the road. It has happened with all my games at one point or another bar one, and it will happen again.

It might seem a bit much to some, but if I'm happy with my choice, then no one needs to be confrontational.

Maoriboy007
29-09-2011, 20:52
Nothing wrong with letting agame go, I am just getting a bit fed up with people blaming GW for their own issues and their mistaken belief that they need to be spoonfed.
Personally I blame GW for thier ownn stupid mistakes.
I'll also give Credit where credit is due, the new step up rules are great, steadfast is a good concept, disruption is better than the ond flanking rules, about time they brought bach the 6th ed redirecting charge rules and random charging isn't as bad as I thought.
But the new LOS and unit type rules are terrible, not being able to disrupt steadfast is stupid, the magic phase is bad in different ways , doom spells are stupid. So many things they just didn't think all the way through that kill the just game for some people.
A lot are probably happy with the new power structure and will no doubt be staunch suppourters of the new game, and that will be the same in every edition. More power to you I guess, but remember that you had exactly the same issue with other editions - if your opinions were valid then ours should be equally so now.

Nubl0
29-09-2011, 20:57
I tried to branch out to other wargames once. Hordes as I recall, lovely game buuut... I could just play magic, warmachine/hordes seems far too much like card game than a wargame to me, plus it's not quite as cinematic as warhammer. Not being able ot make my own lords and stuff irks me :p

Looking at infinity now though, seems promosing. Oh and 8th is the most fun I have had out of any wagame to date!

H33D
29-09-2011, 21:08
Here's an idea:

You don't want your elite unit getting stuck in combat with a larger cheaper unit, effectively tarpitting it there for a few turns or even the game?

Then play smart and don't get that elite unit stuck in combat with that gigantic unit. I don't care how badass five guys on horses with lances are, a hundred goblins will kill them eventually and will probably not flee.

This game has a lot of bad matchups and good matchups. I think if people avoided the bad matchup above then complaints about steadfast would rapidly disappear.

'But noooo I wan't to kill 100 slaves with my 10 swordmasters in only one turn' is whiny. There is a reason there are big killy spells out there, and war machines that are so accurate now (rolls eyes) that they are 'guided by lasers'!

People say that it would create more tactics in the movement phase if disruption removed steadfast etc. I think finding a way to deal with or avoid a steadfast unit counts as tactics. I believe there is a way to deal with anything, and if you are having trouble dealing with it then at least have fun.

I actually kind of like the steadfast rule. It is 8th edition's 'outnumber' combat bonus. It represents the threshold for a unit to hold its ground. When 100 goblins get hit hard and lose 20 guys but have two units of 25 hitting them on each flank, they still have 30 more guys than the other units combined. There are a few reasons I can think of why a unit like this would hold even if the other units were elite:

-its their job. some units are designed to kill, some to hold up the enemy.

-waiting for reinforcements. this is what cavalry is for in 8th. something nasty is flanking your cheapies. time for a cavalry charge in the flank.

-inner strength. i know weird. but some guys have high hopes and when things look like they are going to go bad, they still believe they have the ability to turn things around and so they stay and fight a little longer.

Glabro
29-09-2011, 22:27
When 7th was released I loved it.

At first I was going to say that sarcasm only works when mixed with truths. Then I realized you were referring to 7th. Good show.

But I do tend to agree with the OP, but I myself have yet to really get into 8th - I find I don't have the "drive" to paint up my miniatures for it. Steadfast is a flawed concept to me, broken spells...but that's mostly it. Fix those two things and I'm back.

minionboy
29-09-2011, 22:34
To go back to the OP:

Really not all that random. If you're having a hard time judging if you should declare a charge or not, then I suggest you take a look at a small article I wrote: WHFB Charge Disance (http://www.thediceabide.com/2011/09/math-hammer-whfb-charge-distance/). It's more than just a shameless plug, knowing what your odds are is very important when you play a game with dice.

Go big or go home works for some armies, not others. For many editions it was all about taking the most powerful characters and your units were there for decoration, now instead you get units that actually look like a fighting force, rather than 10 units of 5 archers for MSU spam. It's different, but most people seem to agree it's for the better.

Magic hurts, that's what it does. It's also very risky now. Some of the spells are a bit OTT, but the same thing happened in 6th. I'm sure in the next edition some of the spells will be adjusted, in the mean time, I've never lost a game due to magic alone, so I don't complain.

Steadfast is a great rule, it's what makes it so that 100 Skaven just because a few guys charged into their flank. Some way to break it would be interesting, but it should be more difficult that a flank charge, possibly a rear charge with a unit that has a rank bonus.



At first I was going to say that sarcasm only works when mixed with truths. Then I realized you were referring to 7th. Good show.

But I do tend to agree with the OP, but I myself have yet to really get into 8th - I find I don't have the "drive" to paint up my miniatures for it. Steadfast is a flawed concept to me, broken spells...but that's mostly it. Fix those two things and I'm back.

7th was good, but after seeing how fun 8th is, I look back and see all the flaws. As you said, you haven't really gotten into 8th, so you look at two things that people complain about and you make your decision? That's pretty narrow minded. If you have the minis, get into it, have fun, drink a few beers and you'll realize it's actually a more enjoyable game with a wider variety of opponents to face. If you were just one of the 7e DE/VC/Daemons players who is sad that their broken army isn't as broken anymore, then ignore everything I said and I hope that you don't come back. ;)

Mirbeau
29-09-2011, 23:50
Heh, I've had more games lost due to failed terror tests than I have magic this edition. I don't know, most of the complaints I have seen have been due to the potential of something, as opposed to it actually having happened. My only real complaint with this edition is that artillery is too accurate (though has never really decided a game I've played) and skirmishers can't see 360. I don't like abilities like siren song, or those of the anvil of doom (which can't be stopped in any way) either but thats another thing.

I'm pretty happy with this edition, I've enjoyed it more than any since 5th, the game since to have got back it's oddness. If it seems to be losing its lustre, try something new, and more dynamic, I'm sure big blocks get boring. I've just cracked out my wood elves again after 6 months + of high elves, and enjoying playing radically differently.

Y'know, leave the level four at home and do something un-expected, take something considered less powerful for the hell of it. Don't get me wrong, you should play with an eye to winning (during the game), but the game is called Warhammer, not List-hammer.

Feefait
30-09-2011, 01:41
We tend to be falling into some patterns in our games, and maybe that's the issue. Case in point my first game against the new Ogre book he went with multiple small units (small being 6-9) and I beat him pretty soundly. Next game he took a big unit of IG (9+2 characters) and a horde of bulls and I was thrashed. Just couldn't get through the horde.

I think there are a couple things we are going to do. Steadfast stubborn is broken if you're disrupted. Also, going back to 7th vp's. In my last game I knocked a horde of 41 savage orc big uns down to about 9 models. never broke it, and never got points. Yea, it was a lot of bad luck (12 attacks from clanrats 1 round with 0 hits) but I should get something out of that.

We had stopped playing for a while and missed 6th entirely, coming in halfway through 7th. We really enjoyed it, despite some quibbles. I think 7th did some really good things, and 8th does some really good things. But for me when 8th was released it was brilliant. As has been mentioned though, now that we've kicked the tires a few hundred times it's starting to rattle. it would be nice to have another game to fall back on, but money and time prevent that. GW is not stupid, despite how it may seem. The prices keep people like me from branching out too much.

mikers7284
30-09-2011, 01:47
I agree with the original post, this game has turned into who can have the best horde. Thats pretty much all you see in tournies now and its no fun to play against unless you run an equally funded and equipped horde. Basically the only way to have fun now is if your a fluff player playing against another fluff player and play the way it was intended, or your one of those players who have to min max every possible unit to make some steamroller army list that technically is legal so you can "win" and get some measure of satisfaction from breaking the game.

CaptScott
30-09-2011, 02:09
Agree with what Feefait posted. For the love of god GW, reinstall 7th edition victory points!

Apart from this extremely frustrating point, 8th still a great game that I'll continue to enjoy, though I'm looking forward to 9th.

nurgle5
30-09-2011, 02:18
I agree with the original post, this game has turned into who can have the best horde.

Chew on this for a moment. Having large units gives you the potential for a nifty bonus in CC. However, it also makes you more susceptible to the more powerful magic and warmachines.

Having a horde isn't some kind of autowin button when there is so much that can tear the living daylights out of it and they're unwieldy to boot.


not being able to disrupt steadfast is stupid, the magic phase is bad in different ways , doom spells are stupid.

Complaining about steadfast being difficult to break and doom spells in the same sentence :eyebrows:. You'd almost swear GW included unit-mauling spells to act as some kind of deterrent to overtly large units or something :rolleyes:.

m1acca1551
30-09-2011, 02:52
Who can have the best horde??, that's a simple thing we house ruled, horde units can only be taken from your core and you special and rare choices are capped like DE black guard.

It removed the i have a chosen death star of Tzeentch i win now type games, also a tad more fluffy.

If your into you tournament games, well i'm sorry but that's were magic and template war machines come in, you'll just have to suck it up and use tactics to get around it.

Malorian
30-09-2011, 02:52
Agree with what Feefait posted. For the love of god GW, reinstall 7th edition victory points!.

To be honest this wouldn't really change much.

1/3 of the games have nothing to do with victory points, and of those that do I would think a very small amount of them would have the end result changed depending on how victory points were added (as in a win is a win).

Do I think the old ways made more sense? Yes.

Do I think it plays a big role in 8th? No.

Will it be in 9th? Really don't care.



-Disrupting ranks takes aways steadfast
-Double 1s when casting a spell is an auto fail (double 1 and 6 still does a miscast though)

These two things are all that are needed to fix everything.

J.P. Biff
30-09-2011, 03:38
I prefer Space Marine to Epic Armageddon for example.

For the love of all that is holy, PLEASE tell me you live in around Vancouver, BC, Canada. We have to have a game of epic! :D


We have one table we've cobled together 4' x 4'... ...use it for cups of tea...

Well theres you're problem. Stop drinking tea! Thats the size of an artillery piece PLUS crew! :p


Oh you are a man after my own heart. Space Marine was my first GW game (odd I know). Hell, I even like Epic Armageddon, but the old space marine just gets my fiddlies all excited.

See above response to epic/space marine :D


Looking at infinity now though, seems promosing.

Oh it IS promising. VERY promising. Once you get used to all the special rules and core set. Its ******* great!

CaptScott
30-09-2011, 04:37
To be honest this wouldn't really change much.

1/3 of the games have nothing to do with victory points, and of those that do I would think a very small amount of them would have the end result changed depending on how victory points were added (as in a win is a win).


True, at my local people still mostly play standard pitched battle. Will have to convert them to the benefits of other missions.


Chew on this for a moment. Having large units gives you the potential for a nifty bonus in CC. However, it also makes you more susceptible to the more powerful magic and warmachines.

Another good point, especially with new books coming out with units/rules etc that can take on hordes. Anybody else noticed the nice new gnoblar trapper rules, forces a difficult terrain test on units that charge it. Pop 3-4 in front of a deathstar and watch them crumble! And then follow up with a firebelly breath attack!

zoggin-eck
30-09-2011, 06:07
Hasn't lost its lustre (ha, thread title almost tricked me into spelling it with "er" :D) for me. The closest it's come is more from reading too much from people I'll never meet carrying on about how it doesn't match their idea of a tournament game, a subject that gets all of one page mention in the rulebook. Ignoring that, and just focusing on the material from GW and my own experiences with my usual players, it's still in a good place. I'm enjoying it more and more, painting up some themed terrain and re-painting old units. I'm hoping to work through the extended scenarios in the back of the big book soon.

If it were to loose lustre, why not just play the game differently? Mix up units, swap armies with opponent for the day, add some allies, change terrain rules or make up a scenario for the day? Add a unit you've never used, or one you just like the idea of. At least, if it's a rule or two that ruins the game for you, why not just house rule it? If opponent won't let you try anything else, make new friends!

I do feel like it lost a bit of momentum with Storm of Magic. Aside from some new monsters and terrain, I don't think it quite added enough. The big book was so full of fun scenarios and house rule ideas, I really hoped the first "expansion" type book would be more of this, with perhaps linked game ideas and (wishing!) siege rules, since so much of the book is dedicated to a siege battle. Rules and scenarios that would seem borderline "unofficial" to the "line 'em up and fight" players, I guess.

When the rulebook came out, it had this lovely narrative battle feel to it in the sections after the rules, but the first addition to 8th just felt like "everyone gets monsters and allies with Daemons, just forget the established history" which was a shame in my eyes.

A little more interesting support for the game in White Dwarf would help (same for 40k) more than photos of realm of battle boards with six fortified manors glued together :) Until then, there's more than 20 years worth of usable material in earlier rules and magazines.

*Edit*

I like the discussion of prev. editions and oop games. I don't get why people are so hung up on it, just a matter of finding an opponent. Of course, if you're the only one with the issue (with the current edition), then this will be harder. I kept playing Epic "40,000" years after it died a terrible death, and hope to drag it out again soon.

yabbadabba
30-09-2011, 08:49
I agree with the original post, this game has turned into who can have the best horde. Thats pretty much all you see in tournies now and its no fun to play against unless you run an equally funded and equipped horde. Basically the only way to have fun now is if your a fluff player playing against another fluff player and play the way it was intended, or your one of those players who have to min max every possible unit to make some steamroller army list that technically is legal so you can "win" and get some measure of satisfaction from breaking the game. Unfortnately that's what you get playing tournaments - unreal situations designed to maixmise the tournament environment, still its not just wargames that happens with. You also have to remember that "fun!" is subjective so what's fun for you and me is pointless for someone else.

To all those who say that GW should change such and such a rule - do it yourselves! Its a lot easier than the interwebz implies and people should really just do these things. Especially reinstalling vp's. I think I have usede the same vp system for years.

Urgat
30-09-2011, 09:06
To all those who say that GW should change such and such a rule - do it yourselves! Its a lot easier than the interwebz implies and people should really just do these things. Especially reinstalling vp's. I think I have usede the same vp system for years.

It's also pretty much a rule in the BRB, it's repeated ad nauseum that people should adapt the rules to fit their needs.

PeG
30-09-2011, 09:08
I do agree that hordes are becoming boring. Currently 50% of the armies I face are WoC and they frequently comes with a horde of 3+ ward save chosen or at least very big units of warriors with a stubborn banner. Getting any points from that unit is close to impossible except for with a few very special builds.

Of the remaining opponents a couple of people play skaven and brings huge units of rats (40+ rats in each unit in 1k games and larger if points go up). Also most of my opponents dont seem bothered about beating a handicapped list to pulp over and over again.

To many battles I watch ends up with two hordes angaging each other in the front and then beating each other until one of them are dead.

As some have said the way to beat them without taking your own horde (and not many hordes can do anything about stubborn 3+ chosen) is to kill them with big magic and if you do that the whining starts about how OP dwellers from below or final transmutation are.

Urgat
30-09-2011, 09:09
Heh, one easy way to get rid of those is to forbid count-as. I'd like to see who ACTUALLY fields hordes of chosens, and not "hey, those 5th ed plastic warriors are chosens" :p (just to be on the safe side: I'm not really advocating forbidding count as).
To think that last year people discounted chosens as too expensive to be competitive :p

Rosstifer
30-09-2011, 09:19
Heh, one easy way to get rid of those is to forbid count-as. I'd like to see who ACTUALLY fields hordes of chosens, and not "hey, those 5th ed plastic warriors are chosens" :p (just to be on the safe side: I'm not really advocating forbidding count as).
To think that last year people discounted chosens as too expensive to be competitive :p

I have 40 Metal Chosen. Thankyou, eBay.

DaemonReign
30-09-2011, 09:55
Being someone who tries to avoid fielding anything but Daemons I was excited about 8th Edition and that excitement is just growing.

Random scenarios are great, and a great help for variety too.

The bigger the better. My group used to play around 3k size games but the last few games have been 7-8k. Just plain brilliant.

I bitched alot about the new magic phase before having any experience with it, but I am increasingly at ease with both the random winds of magic and also the nuke-spells that some people evidently dislike.

Then again, I thought the White Dwarf Errata of the Power Scroll was totally uncalled for too, so go figure..

If I had to complain it would be really minute things, like you should count "aggregate" ranks for Steadfast and Monsters should count as having a Rank - stuff like that.. Things I can live without to be honest. Things well worth being without given the new LIFE all this randomness has given the game, given the "brave new world" of BALANCE that comes from all that chaos.

For the future, the only thing that worries me would be if GW continues to have only a handfull of magic items in each new book. It's too late for my old OnG-Horde to have a wide selection of items in 8th Ed, but for the sake of my Dwarf/Empire/DE and VC-playing friends I actually find myself hoping for some good old-fashioned army-creep at least in the Magic Items Sections..

Seriously, 8th Ed has got to be the best Edition to date from GW. I am pressed to say you're doing something wrong if you're not agreeing to this.. But that's silly, to each his own and all that.. :p

Andy p
30-09-2011, 10:45
I bitched alot about the new magic phase before having any experience with it, but I am increasingly at ease with both the random winds of magic and also the nuke-spells that some people evidently dislike.

I think quite a few of the people who dislike or even hate the edition have a similar problem, they have either only played one or two games or they just go on hearsay and that's all.

That isnt to say there arent people who dislike the edition who have played lot's of games of course. Plenty of those people around too. I really dont see the point in trying to change people's opinions of something, if they dont like it, they dont like it, and in fairness some of the people have decent reasons for not liking it.

Although I do get a bit annoyed by seeing certain names pop up in almost any thread discussing some issue with 8th, just so they can say how bad it is and how much they hate it.....yknow just in case you forgot the other 60 times they did it. Afterall being a minority they need to be loud so us 8th liking sheep take notice.



For the future, the only thing that worries me would be if GW continues to have only a handfull of magic items in each new book. It's too late for my old OnG-Horde to have a wide selection of items in 8th Ed, but for the sake of my Dwarf/Empire/DE and VC-playing friends I actually find myself hoping for some good old-fashioned army-creep at least in the Magic Items Sections..

I think that when other books get released they might have more items, it's true that with TK and O&G's they stuck to just 8, but the new OK already broke this trend by giving them 10 and also keeping Big Names.

Whether they listened to others opinions, or whether they were always going to do this is unclear, however I would imagine that those factions more likely the have lots of magical trinkets and weapons lying around, High Elves, Brets, woodies, WOC etc...., are probably going to get more anyhow. Oh and especially dwarves, they ought to have lots of items and runes.

Plus I reckon they will keep at least some of the VC blood lines and WOC gifts and other such things, it would be foolish to take them away. But im just going on my own assumptions here, they could very well do something completely bizarre.



Seriously, 8th Ed has got to be the best Edition to date from GW.

I agree wholeheartedly, I NEVER had this much fun in 7th.

Maoriboy007
30-09-2011, 10:59
It's also pretty much a rule in the BRB, it's repeated ad nauseum that people should adapt the rules to fit their needs.If one section of you group gains major benefits from the current environment you have to be pretty convincing to get them to change it.


Seriously, 8th Ed has got to be the best Edition to date from GW. I am pressed to say you're doing something wrong if you're not agreeing to this.. But that's silly, to each his own and all that.. :pI thought 6th wasn't too bad - 7th was merely 6th with additional ***k ups. 8th does have some great new innovations no doubt...but also additional ***k ups

Liber
30-09-2011, 11:09
When 8th was released I loved it. i thought it finally brought back the fun and excitement I had found lacking in a lot of my games. I have been playing a lot recently and a few things continue to pop up that frustrate me.

1. The randomness:

I am tired of carefully setting up a charge only to roll 1" less than I need to get there. Sure, sometimes I make a charge that is 'impossible' with a good roll but these seem few and far between.

In magic you can never count on an average amount of dice, which makes planning all but impossible. Instead you have to spam wizards and items that may generate more dice.

2. Go big or go home.

The last few games I have been lost have primarily been because my opponents had a big horde. It's kill the horde or... lose. The bunkers, the hordes, the units of 50+... just not what I am into in a game. It takes so much out of the movement and tactics of setting up the right charges.

Spells. This has been discussed ad nauseum, so I will not bring it up again. But those who agree know what I mean.

Steadfast. As a skaven player, well I kinda love it. But it is a bit ridiculous. Sorry, there should be a way to break it.

Am i alone, or is anyone else just getting tired of 8th? I was halfway through a very enjoyable game today but I knew the whole time I could beat the horde of savage orcs, or lose. It was boring. I just kind of lost interest in playing at all because of it. Anyone else running into this?


1. although i feel its a bit too random, better a bit too random than completley rigid and unchaning, imo

2. "go big or go home" to me is what a old fashioned swords, black powder, and sorcery should be about. you win with your numbers, your unit composition first and foremost...and you supplement your chances for victory through the movement of smaller specialised units...so to me its realistic and therefore a bit more enjoyable.


spells yup, failing an characteristic test should not be instant death for a multi wound model, and magic resistance should effect more than just damage and missles....that said i feel that magic casting is fine, its very difficult to get a spell off if your opponent does not want it too succeed, anti magic is also very powerful in this edition so it balances things out a bit.

steadfast should be broken by having either both flanks engaged, or being charged in the rear, imo (or something similar if not exactly that, as everyone pretty much agrees)

SunTzu
30-09-2011, 11:12
Although I do get a bit annoyed by seeing certain names pop up in almost any thread discussing some issue with 8th, just so they can say how bad it is and how much they hate it.....yknow just in case you forgot the other 60 times they did it. Afterall being a minority they need to be loud so us 8th liking sheep take notice.

True. Happily, everyone who likes 8th edition is content to say so once and move on. I guess people who like 8th are just more mature and all-round cooler.

Eternus
30-09-2011, 11:12
I think at least some of what a persons answer to the OP will be depends on what you want out of the game. If you want a pure competative tournament style rulesfest, then it's not what you might get with some other games, but if, like me, the fluff is very important, then the new edition is packed full of characterful story driven gaming, which I love. This is why so far I haven't been tempted to jump to other systems, because it's about the whole hobby experience, and the GW fluff is as good as it gets in my experience.

If all I wanted was nice models to paint and an infallible and inflexible rules set, then I might look elsewhere, but there's so much more to it than that. 8th is the 'personal' edition.

Urgat
30-09-2011, 11:24
If one section of you group gains major benefits from the current environment you have to be pretty convincing to get them to change it.

I play with grown ups. If something is completely idiotic or unbalanced, we tend to agree. True LoS was thrown out of the window very, very fast, regardless of whether anybody gained from it or not. It only took my shaman to cast whatever spell at some dude through a unit of chaos warriors because I could see his left bottock between a dozen axes and a tentacled arm (-yes, look for yourself! I see him! "leans" -Ah, darn) to think something along the lines of "yeah... that didn't feel right, did it?".

Andy p
30-09-2011, 11:25
True. Happily, everyone who likes 8th edition is content to say so once and move on. I guess people who like 8th are just more mature and all-round cooler.

Oh look it's one of those names....

Facetiousness aside, im happy to admit that there are 8th likers who do it too, but not always with the same furor as ive seen some of the 8th haters use.

SunTzu
30-09-2011, 11:29
Oh look it's one of those names....

Oh really? Well, I suppose my first post in this thread WAS pretty rabidly anti-8th-edition-and-anyone-who-plays-it:


[...] a lot of people like it. A lot of people like it a lot. <shrug> Ce la vie, it seems to be "successful" for GW at the moment so there's going to be more of the same. Not much that can be done about it really, either play it or don't. God knows there's enough "8th is great / 8th is crap" threads already. People have mostly formed their opinions by now; some people's opinions may still change, as it sounds like yours is, but for the most part people have made up their mind.

Oh wait. No it wasn't. But still, good to know I'm "one of those names".

Andy p
30-09-2011, 11:45
Oh really? Well, I suppose my first post in this thread WAS pretty rabidly anti-8th-edition-and-anyone-who-plays-it:



Oh wait. No it wasn't. But still, good to know I'm "one of those names".

I think you took way too much offence from something that wasnt even meant offensively. Just an observation and whats more it is only my observation.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word 'facetious'. Besides where did I say I thought all 8th dislikers were 'anti-8th-edition-and-anyone-who-plays-it'?

Also, if you are such a balanced and fair individual with good points to make, why did you get so angry over something that you believe doesnt mean you?

If it doesnt describe you then dont get upset about it thats all. :D Sorry I came off rude anyhow :(.

ps: actually to save you the time facetious means to apply deliberately ill fitting humour to a serious situation, I dont really consider you 'one of those names' it was just a joke.

SunTzu
30-09-2011, 12:31
You misunderstand; I'm neither angry nor upset; I was trying to demonstrate that caricaturing or generalising about people with different opinions to oneself rarely does anyone any credit. There are always so many exceptions to the rule that the rule isn't a rule at all. Thus it is usually neither constructive nor helpful.

Andy p
30-09-2011, 12:44
You misunderstand; I'm neither angry nor upset; I was trying to demonstrate that caricaturing or generalising about people with different opinions to oneself rarely does anyone any credit. There are always so many exceptions to the rule that the rule isn't a rule at all. Thus it is usually neither constructive nor helpful.

But I didnt generalise.


really dont see the point in trying to change people's opinions of something, if they dont like it, they dont like it, and in fairness some of the people have decent reasons for not liking it.


And in the sentence after that when I mentioned my annoyance, I said certain people....not all.

So what exactly was your point?

Eternus
30-09-2011, 12:48
At the end of the day there's more to consider here than just which edition we're playing. At the group I normally play at, some people like 8th, others flat out don't. Personally I think that those people in particular didn't give it a chance, and were determined to try and play it exactly the same way they played 7th edition.

The people you get to play against have a lot to do with whether you have fun or not, and playing against some people, either because they have a poor attitude or because they are focussed on winning at all costs when you just want a bit fun, or are just unfeasibly good players, will not always yield a positive exprience, though the latter would drive me to better myself next time, as I hope it would with most people. Part of playing against other people is the challenge after all.

DaemonReign
30-09-2011, 13:01
If one section of you group gains major benefits from the current environment you have to be pretty convincing to get them to change it.

*lol* This is so true. I think it's a bit insincere, or naive, to hand out "Just Houserule away your Problems" as some sort of grand solution for having gripes with this game. I personally love WHFB in general and 8th in particular, so of course it's easy for me to forgive what I would call small errors in the core rules - but not for one second do I believe that I would be able to turn a bad sentiment around by making houserules.

Houserules, even in the best of adult climates, are really tricky. I guess it's because everyone's passionate about it, and then you end up opening a Pandora's box... One little fix becomes the argument for allowing the next, and before you know it you're in an arbitrary state of 'agreement' instead of the comfort of having an Official Set of Rules to adhere to - whether you agree with them or not (at least you don't have to spend hours on end submerged in principal arguments with your best friends - because yes I am grown up enough to admit that even grown-ups can have such arguments!)


I thought 6th wasn't too bad - 7th was merely 6th with additional ***k ups. 8th does have some great new innovations no doubt...but also additional ***k ups

I'll take your word for it since I didn't play in 6th Ed. From having read the rules and the Army Books from that time, though, I don't think I've spotted anything that would have made me note any great difference between 6th and 7th. Perhaps exactly what you're saying. The screw-ups you refer to, and I suspect I know what you mean from having spent time here on Warseer, are probably of a nature that a 100% in-it-for-the-fluff player like myself wouldn't put high on my list of priorities.

What 8th Ed brings, essentially, that I like alot, are the BIG armies, the REAL battles, the EPIC stuff.. In short. For the first time ever I find myself playing a game that only gets better the more models you buy, paint, and put on the table.. Hell this is starting to sound like an advert.. But I am serious.

I'll have to add that my old OnG (only partly my collection, but a big one at that) hail from 4th Ed - even though that's hardly a reference because our English was so poor back then I'm afraid it was really "all houserules" when it comes down to it. hehe (Example: I remember our Doom Divers didn't have to guess range back then, we really had a laugh when 8th Ed came along and solidified that for All warmachines!)

IcedCrow
30-09-2011, 13:22
Make the game your own. If you live for tournaments, then organize a tournament with a ruleset that you like. If you are OCD and must have pure Warhammer and they don't suit your tournament needs, play Warmachine, which is a game designed for tournament play and facilitates it much better.

I'm a giant advocate of adapting a game to fit your needs. Barring that, write your own ruleset.

Trustey
30-09-2011, 15:11
If winning, tournaments, and powergaming is your playstyle then every edition, faq, and new army book will "force" you to play a certain way. This goes for just about everything in life. There is a tried and tested way that winners do what they do, there's statistical advantages in certain methods, and little room for creativity or innovation.

It's only when you say F all that that you'll enjoy yourself.

WarmbloodedLizard
30-09-2011, 15:47
To all those who say that GW should change such and such a rule - do it yourselves! Its a lot easier than the interwebz implies and people should really just do these things.

this one's just not very realistic (like quite a few of your arguments I seem to read on warseer). something like changing rules is just not possible for most people. and even if ou manage to persuade your club (which depending on the size isn't really that easy, esp. when there are many different kinds of people) that's only a couple of people... then when you go play somewhere else you'll still have the same problem. making your own rules is really only possible an a very small group of people. e.g. if you have 3 friends that also play it's not that hard to houserule some things( or even a lot). but the bigger the group of your opponents get, the more you will have to play with the standard rules. and THAT's why 99% of all the blame lies with GW who just doesn't have a very high standard of rules writing.

arthurfallz
30-09-2011, 15:52
Problems with 8th? I have a couple. It lost its luster fast for me, but I keep playing it when I can because... well, frankly, I poured a butload of money into it, and I get more angry when it goes to waste.*

Steadfast
The good news is that most of the armies I fight are Unbreakable (undead and demons), or have really High Leadership as a racial trait, so Steadfast hasn't changed too much. I do think, however, that Steadfast should be changed to some kind of middle ground between the leader's Leadership and the unit Leadership stat.. it should be harder to keep your 100 slaves in order against the elite enemy when they hit you in the rear and cut 12 of you down than, say, 100 well trained men-at-arms or as many elite warriors. Some strategies or spells to turn it off would be nice.

Random Charges
It's just too big a range. I had Grail Knights (so they're rolling 3D6 keep best two) fail a charge three rounds in a row because of tanking three rolls. It's just frustrating when it happens over and over... I think the variation is just too big. Solution? 1D6 charges, or 3+1D6 or something (to normalize the results a little)...

Spells
They're just too powerful. Too many things now target Stats and don't offer Saves from either armour or Ward Saves, making Magic Resistance often pointless. I play Warhammer to have big and small units moving around on a table, not to see a uber wizard in a corner sniping entire squads away. The "balancing" factor of being able to wipe big units out also slaughters small units, often expensive ones, before they ever get to the front line... favouring big, cheap blocks of boring rabble. Solution? Hmm... Storm of Magic only made it worse, and so many armies have Magic now ingrained into their strategy that you have to basically "play the game as written"... which is becoming unattractive.

My 2 cents. I've evolved my opinion on this forum, for reference, and see it still worth a game to be played, and I honestly do hope the newer Army Books help bring some balance, the release rate of those is... frustratingly slow.

* This being said, there is a point at which I refuse to further invest in the game or just will sell / shelve my models because the game has become unfun. I do the same for bad RPGs, video games, art, etc.

Eternus
30-09-2011, 16:09
this one's just not very realistic (like quite a few of your arguments I seem to read on warseer). something like changing rules is just not possible for most people. and even if ou manage to persuade your club (which depending on the size isn't really that easy, esp. when there are many different kinds of people) that's only a couple of people... then when you go play somewhere else you'll still have the same problem. making your own rules is really only possible an a very small group of people. e.g. if you have 3 friends that also play it's not that hard to houserule some things( or even a lot). but the bigger the group of your opponents get, the more you will have to play with the standard rules. and THAT's why 99% of all the blame lies with GW who just doesn't have a very high standard of rules writing.

The other option is to do what we humans do so well - adapt to the new conditions. Stop focussing on what we don't like or how things are different and see it for what it is, a new challenge. At the end of the day, army book variance aside, we are all playing by the same rules, so what does it matter if Steadfast makes infantry much harder to break when they are supported by their General and BSB? That applies to both sides in a battle, not just one. If one side got to use Steadfast and the other didn't, then it would be wrong, and don't say that armies with masses of cheap core like Skaven and OnG's are more likely to benefit from Steadfast than more expensive elite armies, because they have lower Ld values to capitalise on and cause less damage per model than armies like Dwarfs and High Elves, why? Because they're not elite.

The same can be said for Magic and every other area of the game as well. It comes down to a simple question at the end of it all. Do I want to play, or don't I? The answer for me is yes, and has been since 4th edition Fantasy and 2nd Edition 40k, and they have yet to produce an edition that made me want to take my ball and go home. Editions aren't wrecked by changes to rules, they are wrecked by peoples attitudes towards them, when people are more concerned with being outside their comfort zone than the fun that can be had flying by the seat of your britches with a whole new edition of the game that we haven't had a chance to break yet. Some people have found some great combos and powerful lists, but there are counters to everything, more so in this edition than in 7th IMO.

It's a brave new world people.

WarmbloodedLizard
30-09-2011, 16:58
The other option is to do what we humans do so well - adapt to the new conditions.

that's what competitive people do. then they realized it's stupid and introduced comp-rules. but really, good rules that don't need massive comp-rules are a much better solution.

this has very little to do with comfort zones or peoples attitudes. (I actually get annoyed whenever someone makes the people responsible for the shortcommings of GW. I don't disagree that a minor responsibility is indeed on the peoples side - they have to accept that things change and be open to it - but the most part is really GW's - when change does show to have serious flaws it's got nothing to do with accepting change anymore. And It's not like it would be hard to correct the problems 8th has brought. most of the idiocies don't even need playtesting to become evident.

Lord Solar Plexus
30-09-2011, 17:12
Steadfast
The good news is that most of the armies I fight are Unbreakable (undead and demons), or have really High Leadership as a racial trait, so Steadfast hasn't changed too much.


It is your prerogative to think about this game and any rule whatever you like but this statement makes very little sense to me. You are used to your opponents' units never breaking at all but units that only have a certain resilience to breaking are such a huge problem that you quit? I'm afraid that is rather confusing.

For armies like my Empire, Steadfast is THE best thing to ever have happened. Why buy, paint and play with State Troops or worse in the first place if they run at the first opportunity? To rack up kills? Most certainly not.

Steadfast is going to stay for a long while. Anyone who houserules it away is going to find even more guns, magic or whatnot in the place of the now AGAIN useless troops.



Random Charges
It's just too big a range. I had Grail Knights (so they're rolling 3D6 keep best two) fail a charge three rounds in a row because of tanking three rolls.


So you lose a fight or even a game because of bad rolls, hey-ho. Don't get me wrong, the current system does make that more likely than past ones but I once lost a STank to Slaves in one round...

I can't comment on spells, as I have never seen or used those supposedly devastating ones. I've suffered from one HE spell that increases in strength but that is not a problem of this edition.

yabbadabba
30-09-2011, 17:28
this one's just not very realistic (like quite a few of your arguments I seem to read on warseer). Actually its very realistic and has been at the core of wargaming since HG Wells got writing. By the way thanks for the insult - almost as good value as a sig on here :D

something like changing rules is just not possible for most people. and even if ou manage to persuade your club (which depending on the size isn't really that easy, esp. when there are many different kinds of people) that's only a couple of people... then when you go play somewhere else you'll still have the same problem. making your own rules is really only possible an a very small group of people. e.g. if you have 3 friends that also play it's not that hard to houserule some things( or even a lot). but the bigger the group of your opponents get, the more you will have to play with the standard rules. So first of all, lets get this right. It is something that can be easily done but it is dependent on size? Fair enough, yet tournaments can run with hundreds of people in a year and yet change the very nature of the game with what is called "comp" - and this is nothing more than a set of houserules decided upon by an arbitary group of people.
I'll agree with one thing. Houseruling needs a certain mindset, and a certain degree of community, things that I have found are standard in older and old fashioned wargamers but is decreasing with each new generation. This is also why only certain types of people run torunaments and events. So I am happy for some to point and called me old fashioned, but it doesn't make me wrong.

and THAT's why 99% of all the blame lies with GW who just doesn't have a very high standard of rules writing. Yet when GW have produced "high quality" rules, guess what - its not been successful! Now there's a quandry to resolve :eek:.

IcedCrow
30-09-2011, 17:45
People have a tendency to want their thoughts/beliefs to be the majority and if they can't they abandon them to find something where they are in the majority.

I've heard the argument you can't change rules because the rest of the club won't do it either, and I also believe it is rubbish for the most part. If you really want a certain ruleset, then make an event that uses it. You don't need 100 people to come to your event to validate you that you are in the majority.

We have a campaign group of 12 guys overall using an adapted ruleset. Most people honestly don't really care so long as they know what the deal is going into it. There are indeed a few very vocal members who will slam your alternate ruleset, but who cares? They don't have to participate.

When I unrolled my new fantasy campaign that I've been doing I got bashed by a few people saying that this "screws armies like skaven over who NEED to have 1000 pts in characters", and I reminded them their skaven book was written in 7th ed where you could only have 4 characters total in normal games. They bashed disruption canceling steadfast as making their skaven army "useless now". A lot of what you read on here actually.

And none of what they said has come true (surprise surprise). They didn't participate. It was ok. They play at the shop with pure warhammer, we play in the campaign with an alternate set of rules, everyone is happy. We don't need to have the entire community rally behind our rules. I'd be happy with four players in our group. We have twelve. Even better.

If you really want to play with 7th edition victory points, make an event that does this. I've seen them with my own eyes that use 7th ed victory points. It had quite a few people in it, most of whom don't care either way.

The excuse that it can't be done and is not realistic is lazy, because I've been doing it over ten years now with great success, and it really comes down to I don't need to be validated by a majority, I just want to have a small group and play. If I want a tournament that uses comp X and restriction Y, and it doesn't exist, I go down to the shop and I set it up with the store owner. And typically we have 10-20 people show up.

Did it for years. Will people bash your comp / alt rules? Yes of course. This is the internet... it's composed of people who like to take a giant crap on you if you aren't doing what they consider to be the only one true way of doing it. there will be locals who also don't like it. So? There are also usually a lot of people who just DONT CARE either way and you can get a good tournament rolling with eight people.

Lord Solar Plexus
30-09-2011, 18:55
For many, many people, changing the rules is factually impossible and unthinkable, and I am among them. It not only defeats the purpose of buying the ruleset in the first place - that's called division of labour, and has been at the heart of civilization for longer than Wells -, it can mean overcoming insurmountable obstacles.

Making an event is such an obstacle. I'm afraid this suggestion is clearly the only rubbish here. That's just not everyone's cup of tea, believe it or not, and it means to put a certain infrastructure into place which otherwise is already there. I'm happy to get a night off once a month to play, so labelling this "lazy" as some are wont to call this in lieu of an argument is way off the mark. You didn't program three mods for your favourite computer game? Lazy git, I'm sure someone else did that for 10 years. I'm sorry but Jesus Herbert Christ.

I also don't believe for one second that splitting a gaming community that in some instances consists of Jack, his brother and sometimes there sister Amy's friend in two will make everyone happy. Any example of communities consisting of some 30 regular members - mind you, that is probably three times as many as the community around Oberhausen, with some 5 million people within 30 miles - has any bearing whatsoever on others.

Lastly, changing the rules means that you are eliminating a neutral third party, ie. GW from the equation. Almost every rule discussion will now be between players for whom something is at stake. Yes, it is quite possible to come to rational results amongst adults - the chance is about 50:50, as obviously and irrefutably evidenced in everyday life. In the end, changing the rules in a fundamental way is more at the fringe of wargaming.

Malorian
30-09-2011, 19:01
I'll change the rules for a special mission, but routine games are done by the book.

IcedCrow
30-09-2011, 19:04
The gaming community is already split up. Trying to get everyone to play by the same ruleset is an exercise in futility. Adding a couple of changes to a ruleset and organizing an event that doesn't exist is a long cry from modding a game, which takes dozens to hundreds of hours. It took me all of twenty minutes of going over the rules, seeing what people abuse, and not wanting to have to deal with that. The main rulebook itself even supports tweaking the rules to fit your group in explicit black and white.

Organizing events is organizing events; the same time gets invested regardless of ruleset or modification that you use.

WarmbloodedLizard
30-09-2011, 19:08
Actually its very realistic and has been at the core of wargaming since HG Wells got writing. By the way thanks for the insult - almost as good value as a sig on here :D
So first of all, lets get this right. It is something that can be easily done but it is dependent on size? Fair enough, yet tournaments can run with hundreds of people in a year and yet change the very nature of the game with what is called "comp" - and this is nothing more than a set of houserules decided upon by an arbitary group of people.
I'll agree with one thing. Houseruling needs a certain mindset, and a certain degree of community, things that I have found are standard in older and old fashioned wargamers but is decreasing with each new generation. This is also why only certain types of people run torunaments and events. So I am happy for some to point and called me old fashioned, but it doesn't make me wrong.
Yet when GW have produced "high quality" rules, guess what - its not been successful! Now there's a quandry to resolve :eek:.


tournaments have pretty clear target audiences. everyone who goes to a specific tournament agrees at least somewhat with the rules. (also TO groups are seldom arbitraty I'd say. they are more likely to be of the more experienced kind of players)
I can't say this is true for our club where we have a wide range of players with very different approaches to warhammer. there is also very little demand for house rules. It could indeed have to do with the age of the players or at least the length they have been in the hobby. (We have very few veterans)

so how is it realisitc when only veterans really have the mindset for house rules?

(btw. I don't think GW ever produced "high quality" rules. there were some serious gaps in 6th and 7th as well. but instead of going forward with their quality in each edition, they try to reinvent themselves... this just shows that high quality rules are not their obejective, they just wanna bring out a different set of rules to sell more miniatures when they could do both and sell more. they just don't place enough importance on the rules.)

IcedCrow
30-09-2011, 19:16
Wanting or not wanting house rules does not depend on age, or how long you've played. There are rookies who hate house rules who will hate house rules ten years from now, just as there are those that tinker that will tinker ten years from now. I came into the hobby at 20 years old and was all for tinkering and I'm the same today and a couple of the guys that came in with me hated house rules then and hate them today.

Hating house rules is fine. If you want to play a pure game, that's fine. No contention from me anyhow.

It's when I see people who won't stray from the RAW who then just beat their head against the wall and complain loudly and vocally about it while beating their heads against the wall constantly for weeks and years on end that annoys me, when the problem could easily be resolved by either tweaking the rules to fit your taste, or finding a new system that fits your taste. There are so many alternatives and ways to make things good for you, why do you waste time trying to get people to change when there are a lot of people who enjoy the current environment when you could just go find another environment that usits you?

For some people, we get it. You hate 8th. And you've posted about how much you hate 8th for a long long long time. Fair. I hated 7th. I disappeared until 7th was gone. Then I came back. That's why you'll notice a good three year hole between my posting on here and other places. Houseruling 7th just wasn't going to fix my issues with it, and I wasn't having fun.

Instead of bashing my head against the wall over and over again I simply took a long break and came back a few years later reved up and ready to get back into it.

GW reinvents themselves all the time because they are constantly hiring and firing developers. The people who worked on 6th edition are totally different from the people around today, as is the direction.

zoggin-eck
01-10-2011, 05:33
(btw. I don't think GW ever produced "high quality" rules. there were some serious gaps in 6th and 7th as well.

Since this was in responce to yabbadabba, I wouldn't dare reply for him, but I took it he meant other games, not just the previous two editions of Warhammer?



They just don't place enough importance on the rules.)

See, in my own experience with their games, I honestly don't think that's the case. Regardless of what other people say, I'm sure someone like Jervis, for instance, takes it very seriously. I just doubt he and other GW staff lie awake at night because someone said they hate steadfast, or they made the hydra too cheap. To me, it's more the fact that people expect different things from a game or ruleset. "High quality" rules mean different things to different people. If I get out something like 3rd edition or get to play Dreadfleet and it'd wildly unbalanced or unfair to one side, but we have fun and want to play it agian, then that's "high quality" to me. Others might scream in frustration. Many of the supposed problems people have with the game (Fantasy 8th in this case) just don't come up in my group. I guess I'm just lucky I enjoy them so far.

WarmbloodedLizard
01-10-2011, 10:59
See, in my own experience with their games, I honestly don't think that's the case. Regardless of what other people say, I'm sure someone like Jervis, for instance, takes it very seriously. I just doubt he and other GW staff lie awake at night because someone said they hate steadfast, or they made the hydra too cheap. To me, it's more the fact that people expect different things from a game or ruleset. "High quality" rules mean different things to different people. If I get out something like 3rd edition or get to play Dreadfleet and it'd wildly unbalanced or unfair to one side, but we have fun and want to play it agian, then that's "high quality" to me. Others might scream in frustration. Many of the supposed problems people have with the game (Fantasy 8th in this case) just don't come up in my group. I guess I'm just lucky I enjoy them so far.

I don't think it's primarily the designers that are the problem, when they aren't allowed enough time to work on the rules, or if rules aren't playtested thoroughly (i.e. outside the design studio), or if the results from playtesting are not taken seriously.

and about quality: you're arguing that high quality steel could also be considered high quality if it glitters more beautifully and made a nicer sound when it falls to the ground than strong steel. but what if the steel was both? THAT is what high quality would be: something that sattisfies both kinds of people, not just half of them. (i have no clue about steel, but that's not the point ;))

(as for 6th/7th, I don't know the other editions that well, so I cannot make a definite statement about them.)

nurgle5
01-10-2011, 11:59
The main problems with 8th ed are mostly all the hangovers left from 7th. Whether it's out of place rules, over/undercosted units or just people's attitude in general. The complaints about 8th ed are lacklustre and I doubt they come from genuine experiences in many cases, but from armchair generals.

The main complaint about steadfast which I see thrown around these boards is usually about skaven slaves. This is an armybook issue, not a fault in the edition ruleset. In regards to large units, yes they might get a nifty bonus that usually makes them harder to break in CC, but they're difficult to maneuver and larger target that could be utterly hammered by magic and shooting. Infantry needed some added resilience to make them worth taking, this edition gave them some.

Next up is usually something about random charges. Fluffing dice can happen in any phase, so why the particular hissy fit over this? The falling 1" short thing happened all the time in 7th because anyone could misjudge the distance. So having fixed movement didn't guarantee charges either. You're playing a game based on dice rolling, chance is going to influence everything you do, hence why most tactics in the game involve stacking the odds in your favour. At any rate, random charges are counterweighted by pre-measuring, which allows you to evaluate the likelihood of making a charge.

In regards to magic, for those of you who haven't noticed, there are plenty of rules in the magic phase to completely fluff it up for anyone who chooses to put too little or too many dice into a spell. Too little and you break concentration. Too many and you IF, you risk losing your wizard and/or a chunk of his unit. Not to mention the amount of dice you get each phase isn't fixed so it's difficult to base a battleplan around magic.

I don't think the people who complain about the above have played much of 8th ed or thought these rules through enough to spot the counterweights. Another reason I don't think these people have played much 8th ed is that they completely ignore something that changed in 8th to become far more powerful, the shooting phase. The 8th ed haters complain about everything but the phase that is now more accurate, effective, deadly and dependable.This isn't something I'm bothered by, as it has led to less hill hugging, but I'm surprised that no one seems to bring it up.

You don't like 8th? Fine by me, but I've yet to see an argument against 8th ed that was convincing.

zoggin-eck
01-10-2011, 12:18
and about quality: you're arguing that high quality steel could also be considered high quality if it glitters more beautifully and made a nicer sound when it falls to the ground than strong steel. but what if the steel was both? THAT is what high quality would be: something that sattisfies both kinds of people, not just half of them. (i have no clue about steel, but that's not the point ;))

(as for 6th/7th, I don't know the other editions that well, so I cannot make a definite statement about them.)

I do know a bit about steel, since it's part of one of my jobs! :angel:

But again, my opinion of "quality" is 100% (ok, nothing is 100%) matched by what I expact in a game of Warhammer. There is no "it could be both" because I don't even know or care what the other part is! I get your point, but I think you make a few too many assumptions regarding time spent on rules and playtesting.

You can't say you really know anything about a workplace until you are actually there yourself. People make all these claims about GW designers, but we're not there (or indeed them!) so we're only guessing. I thought I new a bit about aimation studios after my first job, but each time I've been amazed at how different a team works in different locations and projects (or even the same project, so I doubt every army book/rulebook edition goes the same way with the same goals) and how different the "real thing" is from my imagined version from years of study. Playing GW games for years, I've got an idea of how they go about making games, but it's just that, an idea.

The "other games" I mentioned, was in regards to their totally different games, be it the current specialist games or long forgotten games, not early versions of Warhammer. Some of those are still hailed as having "quality rules", but are sadly hard to drum up interest in.

Horribly off topic perhaps?

In regards to the original question (which I thought was a good question until I realised the OP just listed the same reason why many people hate it in the first place, not how the game could loose its lustre?), I think it has a little. My enthusiastic first response was that it hadn't, but that's more from me remembering what I already liked from yesteryear and how to force it back in.

Looking purely at new GW material, it all kind of looks the same! WD used to keep it all interesting with battle reports using personal armies. I thought the featured player's armies in the 8th ed. big book was a good look, but anyone miss the lack of anything but studio models in the Army Books? I really feel silly just noticing that. The two featured Dark Elf armies in the previous Army Book did more for me than the usual models. Is this enough to loose interest? Not really, but it adds to the level of "seen it before" that each book and issue brings. More than that, the same terrain and RoB board again and again. Extreme, but I know so much 40k stuff looks the same to me now it's just photos of the plastic Imperial terrain, and I love that terrain!

eastern barbarian
01-10-2011, 12:42
i love 8th edition. Down my local club WHB never been played more than now :)

Feefait
01-10-2011, 12:43
The main problems with 8th ed are mostly all the hangovers left from 7th. Whether it's out of place rules, over/undercosted units or just people's attitude in general. The complaints about 8th ed are lacklustre and I doubt they come from genuine experiences in many cases, but from armchair generals.

The main complaint about steadfast which I see thrown around these boards is usually about skaven slaves. This is an armybook issue, not a fault in the edition ruleset. In regards to large units, yes they might get a nifty bonus that usually makes them harder to break in CC, but they're difficult to maneuver and larger target that could be utterly hammered by magic and shooting. Infantry needed some added resilience to make them worth taking, this edition gave them some.

Next up is usually something about random charges. Fluffing dice can happen in any phase, so why the particular hissy fit over this? The falling 1" short thing happened all the time in 7th because anyone could misjudge the distance. So having fixed movement didn't guarantee charges either. You're playing a game based on dice rolling, chance is going to influence everything you do, hence why most tactics in the game involve stacking the odds in your favour. At any rate, random charges are counterweighted by pre-measuring, which allows you to evaluate the likelihood of making a charge.

In regards to magic, for those of you who haven't noticed, there are plenty of rules in the magic phase to completely fluff it up for anyone who chooses to put too little or too many dice into a spell. Too little and you break concentration. Too many and you IF, you risk losing your wizard and/or a chunk of his unit. Not to mention the amount of dice you get each phase isn't fixed so it's difficult to base a battleplan around magic.

I don't think the people who complain about the above have played much of 8th ed or thought these rules through enough to spot the counterweights. Another reason I don't think these people have played much 8th ed is that they completely ignore something that changed in 8th to become far more powerful, the shooting phase. The 8th ed haters complain about everything but the phase that is now more accurate, effective, deadly and dependable.This isn't something I'm bothered by, as it has led to less hill hugging, but I'm surprised that no one seems to bring it up.

You don't like 8th? Fine by me, but I've yet to see an argument against 8th ed that was convincing.


This is completely inaccurate. I ahve played more games of 8th than I ever did of 7th I believe. I've played 2 this week! Yes you could fail charges in 7th, but that was because you have misjudged something, not because you just didn't roll well. Also, when you failed you knew how far you would go. It wasn't a matter of moving somewhere between 1-6" depending on your roll. You could suitably predict and judge the outcome of a failed or made charge. In a game already ruled by random dice rolls it just adds... more. If you don't see that then good on you. My question is really about whether people are now losing interest in the shininess 8th first presented.

I think the shooting phase CAN be extremely deadly. Warp lightning cannons are just sick now. Yesterday i was torn up by some goblin archers with volley fire and 5+ poison. But as has been pointed out regarding charges and magic... this is all dependent on the situation. And the enormous units of 8th mean you can absorb fire better. Add in the bsb rerolls on panic (which I am not arguing against) and you can no longer reliably think of causing panic as a viable tactic.

8th just changed a LOT. At first i thought it was brilliant, but eh... as I said some things are just starting to seem stale.

As an example, I hated the hw+shield extra save in 7th for some reason. Guess what - parry is even worse, imo. I can't remember the last time I bothered with alternate weapons (that were not great weapons) just because I don't want to lose that ward. I never felt forced to play a certain way in any other edition the way I do in 8th.

WarmbloodedLizard
01-10-2011, 12:46
bla


you don't seem to follow the "we-have-some-problems-with-8th" discussions at all...

WarmbloodedLizard
01-10-2011, 12:50
I do know a bit about steel, since it's part of one of my jobs! :angel:

But again, my opinion of "quality" is 100% (ok, nothing is 100%) matched by what I expact in a game of Warhammer. There is no "it could be both" because I don't even know or care what the other part is! I get your point, but I think you make a few too many assumptions regarding time spent on rules and playtesting.


yes, you don't. see my sig!

about the work place and playtesting: we have heard quite a bit over the years. there was playtesting outise but it wasn't taken seriously (don't remember when it was exactly.) then, there is pretty much no playtesting outside, I'd say. this can be deducted from the lack of rumours.

zoggin-eck
01-10-2011, 13:13
yes, you don't. see my sig!

about the work place and playtesting: we have heard quite a bit over the years. there was playtesting outise but it wasn't taken seriously (don't remember when it was exactly.) then, there is pretty much no playtesting outside, I'd say. this can be deducted from the lack of rumours.

Yes, I don't? Not really sure what you mean, to be honest.

I've read your sig before. Regardless of what you think or I may have made it seem, I do agree with it. There is a rift between what some people want (I think there's a rift between what GW want their games to be and what some fans want them to be, too), just like every passtime. I actually don't think either "does harm" to the game. As for telling people how to enjoy the game, I believe that's more a person to person thing. There's no point generalising people into "tournament" players and "fluff" players on a forum with people form so many different backgrounds.

Funny thing is, of course people are going to say how to enjoy the game, as that is a question that is often asked! With a question like the one starting this thread, of course it'll come up. I think we're all grown up enough to know people are just stating their opinions and ideas whithout having to add a "this is just my opinion" discalmer :)

Again, the playtesting info is still pretty thin to go on for people outside the company. For all we know, when using outside testers the info they got wasn't useful, or went totally agianst what the writers wanted (like a director ignoring everyone else's advice and making the film he/she wants) or just didn't help at all. Perhaps a single bad experience ruined it for everybody. People on here can't always decide on what makes a good game. Annoyingly it's all opinion, it isn't like testing a video game ("The character falls through the floor then the model turns inside out and the game crashes" - "No, that's a feature of the game!")

nurgle5
01-10-2011, 13:25
Yes you could fail charges in 7th, but that was because you have misjudged something, not because you just didn't roll well. Also, when you failed you knew how far you would go. It wasn't a matter of moving somewhere between 1-6" depending on your roll. You could suitably predict and judge the outcome of a failed or made charge.

Fair point, the older system was more stable in some areas because of fixed movement, especially in the case of a failed charge. My point was really about the 8" shuffle rather than the exact mechanics of 7th. I didn't have a problem with fixed movement per se, but I didn't enjoy the gameplay it encouraged. I do still think you can predict and judge the outcome of a failed or made charge, imo, it's trading estimating the distance with judging a likely outcome on the dice roll.



I think the shooting phase CAN be extremely deadly. Warp lightning cannons are just sick now. Yesterday i was torn up by some goblin archers with volley fire and 5+ poison. But as has been pointed out regarding charges and magic... this is all dependent on the situation. And the enormous units of 8th mean you can absorb fire better. Add in the bsb rerolls on panic (which I am not arguing against) and you can no longer reliably think of causing panic as a viable tactic.

I'd agree that causing panic might not be a viable tactic because of the BSB (unless you opt to snipe the BSB with warmachines), but you can still cause a massive of amount of damage, softening up those blocks when CC rolls round.


you don't seem to follow the "we-have-some-problems-with-8th" discussions at all...

It's always nice to see some constructive criticism on one's opinions, especially when said criticism is well thought through, expressed extensively and appropriately. If you have no intention of addressing any of my points with any degree of elaboration, I don't care, it only undermines your position on the subject.

Eternus
01-10-2011, 16:37
Doesn't the fact that all Ld tests can be rerolled with the BSB within 12"(18") just mean that you now have to conciously target the General and BSB more than you did in 7th? Again, just a change in the skills we need to employ to win, not that there wasn't an abundance of character assasination going on in 7th.

No, I don't think 8th has lost it's lustre, but maybe we are now at the point were people are learning how to get the goodies out of the rules, but we haven't yet learned the counters that will inevitably follow.

Lord Solar Plexus
01-10-2011, 17:09
The gaming community is already split up. Trying to get everyone to play by the same ruleset is an exercise in futility.


Those are odd statements, considering that my community is not split at all and everyone does follow the same ruleset. It may well be the case in your vicinity but that has very little bearing on other locations.



Adding a couple of changes to a ruleset and organizing an event that doesn't exist is a long cry from modding a game, which takes dozens to hundreds of hours. It took me all of twenty minutes of going over the rules, seeing what people abuse, and not wanting to have to deal with that.


Perhaps it takes more or less time, who knows. Depends on what exactly you want to change I guess. It would take *me* much more than 20 minutes to come up with any changes that make sense, so I don't see what your example demonstrates. The salient point is that I strongly oppose your notion that it is laziness which keeps people from changing the rules and setting up gaming events.

IcedCrow
01-10-2011, 21:14
Those are odd statements, considering that my community is not split at all and everyone does follow the same ruleset. It may well be the case in your vicinity but that has very little bearing on other locations.



Considering that every one of us can only speak from personal experiences, that is universally true and goes without saying.



Perhaps it takes more or less time, who knows. Depends on what exactly you want to change I guess. It would take *me* much more than 20 minutes to come up with any changes that make sense, so I don't see what your example demonstrates. The salient point is that I strongly oppose your notion that it is laziness which keeps people from changing the rules and setting up gaming events.

Twenty minutes. An hour. Two hours. A day. A drop in the bucket. It takes little effort to change the one or two niggling things that may bother you and find people willing to play that way. If you wish to chain yourself to the RAW, then any displeasure you experience is from your own inaction, especially when the rulebook itself encourages changing rules and making your own up, and tournament organizers do so on a regular basis.

logan054
01-10-2011, 22:39
In regards to magic, for those of you who haven't noticed, there are plenty of rules in the magic phase to completely fluff it up for anyone who chooses to put too little or too many dice into a spell. Too little and you break concentration. Too many and you IF, you risk losing your wizard and/or a chunk of his unit. Not to mention the amount of dice you get each phase isn't fixed so it's difficult to base a battleplan around magic.

While its true its not very reliable I am yet to play someone without a magic user in their army, I tried it myself when I wanted to use a fluffy Khorne army, it didn't go well. Problem is the main defense to magic is magic, its the only real reliable defense until you can kill their wizards which can be a problem if the enemy wizard is constantly debuffing you units when they actually get close enough.

Magic wouldn't be so bad if not for a few insane spells that can dramatically change the course of game, who knows maybe 9th ed will tone down some of lores.

Okuto
01-10-2011, 22:51
Now tats da tuff

Though I'd had mixed results with no magic, but I use war machines to make up for lack of magic, not all armies have the luxury of substitution for magic....

Even my dispell die hording self can't stop all spells that are thrown at me....

nurgle5
01-10-2011, 22:55
While its true its not very reliable I am yet to play someone without a magic user in their army, I tried it myself when I wanted to use a fluffy Khorne army, it didn't go well. Problem is the main defense to magic is magic, its the only real reliable defense until you can kill their wizards which can be a problem if the enemy wizard is constantly debuffing you units when they actually get close enough.

Magic wouldn't be so bad if not for a few insane spells that can dramatically change the course of game, who knows maybe 9th ed will tone down some of lores.

The insane spells wouldn't be so bad if they just caused wounds rather than outright slay, though to be honest, buffs have had a bigger impact than direct damage in the majority of the games I've played. Usually by the time combat rolls round on most fronts, direct damage magic is hurled out the window anyway.

I've yet to play using a level 4, but my level 2 can usually do a decent job against enemy magic caddied with a dispel or feedback scroll. Probably not as a good as a level 4 but good enough to get me through a game without magic negatively affecting my army too much.

Okuto
01-10-2011, 23:03
buffs are....crazy I usually want to dispell those things more than the nuke spells....

Though magic in this edition isn't exactly modest...lol

logan054
01-10-2011, 23:11
The insane spells wouldn't be so bad if they just caused wounds rather than outright slay, though to be honest, buffs have had a bigger impact than direct damage in the majority of the games I've played. Usually by the time combat rolls round on most fronts, direct damage magic is hurled out the window anyway.

I've yet to play using a level 4, but my level 2 can usually do a decent job against enemy magic caddied with a dispel or feedback scroll. Probably not as a good as a level 4 but good enough to get me through a game without magic negatively affecting my army too much.


I totally agree with you, they wouldn't be so bad if they didn't out right kill models and allow no wardsaves or if MR was actually useful, sadly thats not the case and they have to be house ruled.

I had plenty of success with a single lvl2 myself with 3rd eye of Tzeentch and lore of fire or mark of Tzeentch, did wonders! I then tried out a lvl4 against a HE player, I was surprised at the difference the extra +2 cast and dispel made. I pretty much shut down the guy magic phase and destroyed his army in combat. Until this game I was of the same believe as yourself, afterwards it dawned on me if he made that much of a difference to my game then he should do the same for others and I am just putting myself at a disadvantage. The extra to cast does mean you can usually use less dice to caste a spell and thus get more spells off a turn, it also means you can use less to dispel and counter more spells if dispelling a lower level wizard.

Balerion
02-10-2011, 00:40
I call this Gayth edition
Because it makes you super happy and mirthful when you play it?

CaptScott
02-10-2011, 01:21
The insane spells wouldn't be so bad if they just caused wounds rather than outright slay, though to be honest, buffs have had a bigger impact than direct damage in the majority of the games I've played. Usually by the time combat rolls round on most fronts, direct damage magic is hurled out the window anyway.

I've yet to play using a level 4, but my level 2 can usually do a decent job against enemy magic caddied with a dispel or feedback scroll. Probably not as a good as a level 4 but good enough to get me through a game without magic negatively affecting my army too much.


I'm starting to change my tune on uber-spells, I think they're a great mechanic to combat hordes. Sure you can take a horde of 50 but a single super spell can wipe it out, so it might be better to take 2 smaller units.

Also agree that a plain ol' level 2 with a scroll is quite a good defence, I often run this as well.

Lord Solar Plexus
02-10-2011, 01:54
Considering that every one of us can only speak from personal experiences, that is universally true and goes without saying.


Only one of us is basing sweeping statements on his observations and his personal abilities and preferences. What precisely is universal about your notion that everyone is as adept at spotting and changing rules and still presenting a good game just because you can and will do that? Nothing! It's irrelevant.



It takes little effort to change the one or two niggling things that may bother you and find people willing to play that way.


Au contraire. It takes quite an effort to get people to even play. They've all got real life stuff to do these days. Not sure how you can dispute that - do you somehow know my or other people's gaming groups better than me? It is not at all easy, and I won't make a fool of myself by going to a GW shop at my age. Introducing new rules within the group on top of that is a) not what we want, and b) complicates things. And then you lose the neutral third party that gets out a new FAQ.



If you wish to chain yourself to the RAW, then any displeasure you experience is from your own inaction


You seem unable to accept that your way is not everyone else's way. Many people are not into this for writing rules or organizing events I'm afraid. A vast majority does not even partake in the Rules discussions on this board. Those are the facts whatever you preach. And we haven't even touched the problem of unforseen consequences.

*I* am quite pleased with 8th by the way. I do not think that changing the rules is the way to go for someone who is not so pleased. That just sounds like such a weak excuse. If I was in such a person's shoes, I would simply play something else. Hearts of Iron is still a fascinating game...

IcedCrow
02-10-2011, 03:46
I'm not going to get into another Warseer pissing contest. I am able to accept that my way is not everyone else's way. That's why I went out and made my way so that I could have fun with the game, and found people who agreed with that. If you are happy with 8th, yay for you, you weren't who I was addressing. I like 8th too minus a couple of niggling things. If I didn't I wouldn't have come back or would have found a different system altogether to get on as opposed to jumping up and down on internet forums and complaining about how much I hate it because I feel that that is largely a waste of time and energy.

I'll just leave it at that.

eldargal
02-10-2011, 05:09
I sometimes take Empire armies with warrior priests for a bit of anti-magic, it works well usually. The background for my Dark and High Elves are based around magic though so they tend to be wizard heavy, so I've not tried it with them.


While its true its not very reliable I am yet to play someone without a magic user in their army, I tried it myself when I wanted to use a fluffy Khorne army, it didn't go well. Problem is the main defense to magic is magic, its the only real reliable defense until you can kill their wizards which can be a problem if the enemy wizard is constantly debuffing you units when they actually get close enough.

Magic wouldn't be so bad if not for a few insane spells that can dramatically change the course of game, who knows maybe 9th ed will tone down some of lores.

Mindshred
03-10-2011, 06:37
I'm still having alot of fun with 8th edition. :)

jtrowell
03-10-2011, 10:36
I see many advocating disrupting cancelling steadfast while giving as the main offender the skaven slaves, but one thing that seems to be missed is that disrupting if already *very* effective against slaves, as they lose upt to 3 points in Leadership when disrupted (no rang bonus = no SiN).

Sure, slaves with rerollable Ld10 are almost unbreakable, but slaves with only Ld7 at best (when in range of the general) are not too hard to break.

I think too that cancelling steadfast with just the disrution would starts other bigger problems, such as unit of 15+ heavy cavalry getting in the flank and autobreaking almost anything like they did in 7th edition.

Of the variant rules suggested to counter steadfast if you really find it a problem (I'm not), I find that preventing the usage of the rules "inspiring presence" (general Ld when in range) and "hold your ground" (BSB reroll) when disrupted, or even only one of them, is a better way to handle it.

If you really have steadfast problems in your meta, I would advise to first try with disruption only cancelling one of those rules first, like only cancelling the reroll for exemple, and only be omre restrictive if it really doesn't seems enough after a few games.

But as I said, I don't think that steadfast is really the problem (and note that you can make a deathstart without it by using the crown of command), and once some cheese is removed with new army books (like no chosen with 3+ ward save), it should become better.

Oh, and about the original topic, I find that 8th is still very much fun for me, and is improving with each new army book.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 10:54
All things considered, looking at the style of 8th, what you get on the table as far as the look and feel of a battle, the rules (in general) and the general encouragment of scenario use and narrative play style, I think that 8th edition is the best edition I have played, though I can only speak off the back of eighteen and a half years experience, from 4th onwards, so maybe I don't have enough basis for comparison?

Honestly though, the simple fact is we are a varied and free thinking bunch....you just can't please everybody. If we all wanted the same things out of a game, they wouldn't need 12 or so different races with different play styles, would they?

RanaldLoec
03-10-2011, 10:59
Better rules, better errata faq support, more models, better models, balanced well written army books, fun based expansions, rules that reward taking bigger units, earth shatteringly powerful magic, warhammer getting the forgeworld treatment..............

........BRING IT ON :D

That's a no to the original post by the way.

ewar
03-10-2011, 12:41
True, at my local people still mostly play standard pitched battle. Will have to convert them to the benefits of other missions.

I almost never play pickup games, just against mates and tournaments.

However about a year ago, I went to a club to play to see what it was like (creepy, I thought).

But the guy I played against brought an Empire gun line and when we were getting ready he assumed we were playing pitched battle - I had to actually point out that the scenarios are not optional, you roll scenario as part of a normal non-house ruled game of Warhammer.

He didn't want to, I said I'd prefer to play without a shooting phase, but as it's in the book I would kind of have to go along with it. Same for scenarios.

Scenarios are the best thing to happen to Warhammer - why people are so resistant to it I have no idea.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 12:50
Scenarios are the best thing to happen to Warhammer - why people are so resistant to it I have no idea.

Give that man a whole bucket load of cookies...

Tokamak
03-10-2011, 12:54
1. The randomness:

I am tired of carefully setting up a charge only to roll 1" less than I need to get there. Sure, sometimes I make a charge that is 'impossible' with a good roll but these seem few and far between.

It's not random. You know EXACTLY the probability of making that charge and the onus is on you to weigh that probability against the value of making that charge. So stop gambling and either prepare for botched charges or don't take them at all.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 13:00
It's not random. You know EXACTLY the probability of making that charge and the onus is on you to weigh that probability against the value of making that charge. So stop gambling and either prepare for botched charges or don't take them at all.

Tokamak should get some cookies too, someone get him some cookies this minute!

IcedCrow
03-10-2011, 13:03
I almost never play pickup games, just against mates and tournaments.

However about a year ago, I went to a club to play to see what it was like (creepy, I thought).

But the guy I played against brought an Empire gun line and when we were getting ready he assumed we were playing pitched battle - I had to actually point out that the scenarios are not optional, you roll scenario as part of a normal non-house ruled game of Warhammer.

He didn't want to, I said I'd prefer to play without a shooting phase, but as it's in the book I would kind of have to go along with it. Same for scenarios.

Scenarios are the best thing to happen to Warhammer - why people are so resistant to it I have no idea.

the biggest reason that I see for people not wanting scenarios is that they can't tailor a list. If you don't know what scenario you are going to fight, you can't bring your stack-daddy list when you could roll a scenario that will "screw you".

Scenarios enforce balance and comp on their own. As such they are reviled by certain people who like pitched battle all the time because they know what to expect from pitched battle, and can therefore tailor their list to pitched battle (gunlines being one of those formations that can do well in pitched battle, but not so well in a capture scenario where you have to actually use the movement phase since they are static)

I love scenarios.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 13:12
The existence of the Blood and Glory scenario on it's own can go some way to ensuring you have a resonable number of banner waving units on the table on top of your General, because you might end up playing it. Just another one of the uncertainties that actually makes 8th more exciting in my opinion than 7th.

IcedCrow
03-10-2011, 13:14
Actually I use that scenario to help comp out death stars.

ewar
03-10-2011, 14:07
The existence of the Blood and Glory scenario on it's own can go some way to ensuring you have a resonable number of banner waving units on the table on top of your General, because you might end up playing it. Just another one of the uncertainties that actually makes 8th more exciting in my opinion than 7th.


Actually I use that scenario to help comp out death stars.

All the scenarios have an effect like that:

Blood & Glory counters deathstars
Watchtower counters gun lines
Battle for the Pass counters horde armies
Dawn Attack makes players of all armies think on their feet

Only Meeting Engagement and Battleline are traditional slug fests and the former also has a negative impact on gun lines again.

ihavetoomuchminis
03-10-2011, 14:07
I agree with you both IcedCrow and ewar (and the guy of cookies) about scenarios. They balance the overall experience in the game quite good. It's true that the tower scenario should be revisited, but the others are fine.


the biggest reason that I see for people not wanting scenarios is that they can't tailor a list. If you don't know what scenario you are going to fight, you can't bring your stack-daddy list when you could roll a scenario that will "screw you".

Scenarios enforce balance and comp on their own. As such they are reviled by certain people who like pitched battle all the time because they know what to expect from pitched battle, and can therefore tailor their list to pitched battle (gunlines being one of those formations that can do well in pitched battle, but not so well in a capture scenario where you have to actually use the movement phase since they are static)

I love scenarios.

i think this is sooo true. At the end of the day, many 8th edition complains (not all of them) can be reduced to "my old tactics don't work anymore and i don't want to spend a second thiking new tactics. i just want to win, NOW with the 2000 points army i have wich i've not changed in years"

Urgat
03-10-2011, 14:34
I almost never play pickup games, just against mates and tournaments.

However about a year ago, I went to a club to play to see what it was like (creepy, I thought).

But the guy I played against brought an Empire gun line and when we were getting ready he assumed we were playing pitched battle - I had to actually point out that the scenarios are not optional, you roll scenario as part of a normal non-house ruled game of Warhammer.

He didn't want to, I said I'd prefer to play without a shooting phase, but as it's in the book I would kind of have to go along with it. Same for scenarios.

Scenarios are the best thing to happen to Warhammer - why people are so resistant to it I have no idea.

Yes you do, of course you know. Go back there and ask that guy with an empire gunline why he didn't want to play the scenarios :p

Just ask yourself why so many people dislike the watchtower scenario? Why? It's a fun one, no? The answer will be (a disguised version of) "I can't win that one with my army" most of the time (some actually don't find it fun, which is fair game). "D'hur" moment :p

ewar
03-10-2011, 14:39
Yes you do, of course you know. Go back there and ask that guy with an empire gunline why he didn't want to play the scenarios :p

Just ask yourself why so many people dislike the watchtower scenario? Why? It's a fun one, no? The answer will be "I can't win that one with my army" most of the time (some actually don't find it fun, which is fair game). "D'hur" moment :p

:D Hehe, ok you've got me there - I meant in the broader sense of the meta game that scenarios improve the overall experience of Warhammer, so why don't players take that into account when list building?

In my tourney list I have only got 6 Fortitude, which is a major weakness, especially given that 4 of them reside with my Slann and Temple Guard... unfortunately that's just the way the list works and I don't have the points to squeeze more banners in.

Toshiro
03-10-2011, 16:24
All things considered, looking at the style of 8th, what you get on the table as far as the look and feel of a battle, the rules (in general) and the general encouragment of scenario use and narrative play style, I think that 8th edition is the best edition I have played

I agree completely, that is the biggest benefit of 8th ed, a battle actually feels like a battle, big chunks of blocks tearing into each other without breaking in the first round after 1 or 2 casualties. And the narrative story telling with different scenarios, lots of terrain and general awesomness going around makes for a very fun game!


Scenarios are the best thing to happen to Warhammer - why people are so resistant to it I have no idea.

Well, you might have answered your own question :p

Scenarios is the best thing to have happened to this game imo, I used to play scenarios all the time in 7th, but only against players like me, couldn't get a pick-up game and play a scenario, now you do! :D


It's not random. You know EXACTLY the probability of making that charge and the onus is on you to weigh that probability against the value of making that charge. So stop gambling and either prepare for botched charges or don't take them at all.

Very true words and another thing I love about 8th, risk assessment! You never got that in 76th, you knew how far you charged and you knew that A kills B but not C and D kills A+B+C without breaking a sweat, very little risk assessment required in my experience. Now you have to take a risk, but not necesarily a gamble, you have to make an evaluation of the probablitliy of success and weigh it against the cost of failure, and plan for both contingiencies. (I have no spell check on this computer, so things are gonna be misspelled, sorry about that, I'm Swedish, I have an excuse for not being perfect in English.)


the biggest reason that I see for people not wanting scenarios is that they can't tailor a list. If you don't know what scenario you are going to fight, you can't bring your stack-daddy list when you could roll a scenario that will "screw you".

Scenarios enforce balance and comp on their own. As such they are reviled by certain people who like pitched battle all the time because they know what to expect from pitched battle, and can therefore tailor their list to pitched battle (gunlines being one of those formations that can do well in pitched battle, but not so well in a capture scenario where you have to actually use the movement phase since they are static)

I love scenarios.

Again, I agree fully, I love scenarios as explained above!

Eternus
03-10-2011, 16:36
Very true words and another thing I love about 8th, risk assessment! You never got that in 76th, you knew how far you charged and you knew that A kills B but not C and D kills A+B+C without breaking a sweat, very little risk assessment required in my experience. Now you have to take a risk, but not necesarily a gamble, you have to make an evaluation of the probablitliy of success and weigh it against the cost of failure, and plan for both contingiencies.

This, for me at least, is what gives the greatest sense of realism. Generals throughout history have had to make a judgement call based on what they know about the enemy, what they think they can expect from their own troops, and what the variables are, but they could rarely, if ever, be totally sure of an outcome. If that were the case, people wouldn't ever go to war.

stonetroll
04-10-2011, 21:43
Genuinely LOLing at the people saying "woods beat steadfast!!!". Here's the thing: your opponent never has to move his steadfast unit into a wood if he doesn't want to.


At which point you can continue to batter him with ranged/magic..... should be a win/win situation for the person that set up the situation correctly.

logan054
04-10-2011, 21:54
I sometimes take Empire armies with warrior priests for a bit of anti-magic, it works well usually. The background for my Dark and High Elves are based around magic though so they tend to be wizard heavy, so I've not tried it with them.

Yeah that certainly works but only because they generate dispel dice which is really one of the those old editions issues they decided to ignore. Its great fun to play against when they have a lvl4 and a archlector and a priest, honest...


The existence of the Blood and Glory scenario on it's own can go some way to ensuring you have a resonable number of banner waving units on the table on top of your General, because you might end up playing it. Just another one of the uncertainties that actually makes 8th more exciting in my opinion than 7th.

I certainly agree with things like this, just a shame they can't move past "magic ROXZZ!!" when designing a game.

WizzyWarlock
05-10-2011, 07:44
The one thing that I really dislike about 8th, which was highlighted in a game I had last night, is the Victory Points. Why oh why do we now have to wipe out an entire unit to gain Victory Points?

I was Wood Elves facing off against High Elves. The High Elves had turned up with 2 large units of 40+, some bolt throwers and a small unit of Longbows. I fielded 3 units of 20 Glade Guard, 2 units of 10 Glade Riders, 10 Waywatchers, 6 Treekin, 2 Treemen (one an Ancient).

At the end of the game the High Elves had downed a Treeman and a unit of Glade Riders, as well as a few models from the Glade Guard. Total of just over 500 points lost. The High Elves were down to about 5 models on one unit, the Longbows were down to 4 models, and the final unit was being stomped by a combined Treeman / Treekin charge. Overall I did way more damage, but because I couldn't kill those last few models to remove the unit I received a grand total of 0 Victory Points.

What. The. Hell?! Even the High Elf player admitted it was stupid and we immediately went into discussion about how to make a new way of awarding VP's. By all rights I'd won that battle, but not wiping out massive units meant I didn't.

Silly. Very silly.

Eternus
05-10-2011, 09:09
Although you caused sufficient damage, one of the things that has changed is where the damaged really counts. If you killed enough stuff then you're vitrually there, just need to concentrate on hammering fewer targets into oblivion rather than damaging lots of units but destroying few.

Not an issue in my opinion.

Andy p
05-10-2011, 09:24
It's not random. You know EXACTLY the probability of making that charge and the onus is on you to weigh that probability against the value of making that charge. So stop gambling and either prepare for botched charges or don't take them at all.

Ah! you know I didnt even realise I was doing it until one of my later games in 8th, but I suddenly woke up and noticed I was actually working out the charge chances on their probability of success.

I can also relate to Wizzy Warlock's post, ive had a similar problem which baffled me a bit until I started focusing on units one at a time to kill them off instead of spreading out.

Although for WE I know it's a lot harder for them than the armies I play with.

eldargal
05-10-2011, 09:37
Yup, I learnt quickly to focus my attention on regiments until they died rather than whittle a lot down at once. Great way of ending MSU nonsense, too. I hated seeing 'armies' of a few groups of five chaps running/riding around the battlefield in 7th.


Although you caused sufficient damage, one of the things that has changed is where the damaged really counts. If you killed enough stuff then you're vitrually there, just need to concentrate on hammering fewer targets into oblivion rather than damaging lots of units but destroying few.

Not an issue in my opinion.

Toshiro
05-10-2011, 10:16
I agree with Eternus on this one, sure I've also had my moments of getting a tad annoyed when a couple of models survive from an expensive unit. But on a whole I don't find it an issue that comes up very often, at least not in the group I play with :)

Venkh
05-10-2011, 10:32
The whole scene has nosedived round my way.

NO warhammer games played in my club (60+ members) last week for the first time in ages.

For a significant number of players the game has become pointless and the latest supplement has only made things worse.

I dont come to the Fantasy section very much any more, I still have 4 6k+ armies sitting in their cases. I cant forsee a time when they will be coming out again.

One thing i have noted is that the advocates of 8th edition accuse the departing players of being a WAAC tournament hardcore of rules lawyers. This very unfair.

the_slosh
05-10-2011, 11:00
The whole scene has nosedived round my way.

NO warhammer games played in my club (60+ members) last week for the first time in ages.

For a significant number of players the game has become pointless and the latest supplement has only made things worse.

Pointless; Did you guys stop having fun?

Don't need to use the supplement (Assuming SoM)

I dont come to the Fantasy section very much any more, I still have 4 6k+ armies sitting in their cases. I cant forsee a time when they will be coming out again.

Warseer can be a tiring experience so no worries about that, but have you lost the motivation completely or do you still play other systems and hopefully still enjoy the wargames experience?

One thing i have noted is that the advocates of 8th edition accuse the departing players of being a WAAC tournament hardcore of rules lawyers. This very unfair.

Please expand on this, because some of the best games I had is against the so called "WAAC" gamers because the give their full devotion to the game (and more often then not when bending rules for their own gain (very rare) they actually know what they are)



I find your post very interesting and I would like you to explain a bit more detailed why you and your gaming group feel this way.

Personally I love 8th but I am what you could call a "relaxed" gamer

Awilla the Hun
05-10-2011, 11:03
According to this website, 8th edition never had any lustre. It is therefore by definition impossible for it to be lost.

diggerydoom
05-10-2011, 11:10
The one thing that I really dislike about 8th, which was highlighted in a game I had last night, is the Victory Points. Why oh why do we now have to wipe out an entire unit to gain Victory Points?

I was Wood Elves facing off against High Elves. The High Elves had turned up with 2 large units of 40+, some bolt throwers and a small unit of Longbows. I fielded 3 units of 20 Glade Guard, 2 units of 10 Glade Riders, 10 Waywatchers, 6 Treekin, 2 Treemen (one an Ancient).

At the end of the game the High Elves had downed a Treeman and a unit of Glade Riders, as well as a few models from the Glade Guard. Total of just over 500 points lost. The High Elves were down to about 5 models on one unit, the Longbows were down to 4 models, and the final unit was being stomped by a combined Treeman / Treekin charge. Overall I did way more damage, but because I couldn't kill those last few models to remove the unit I received a grand total of 0 Victory Points.

What. The. Hell?! Even the High Elf player admitted it was stupid and we immediately went into discussion about how to make a new way of awarding VP's. By all rights I'd won that battle, but not wiping out massive units meant I didn't.

Silly. Very silly.

I would have to agree with this. By taking out partial VP (along with VP for units fleeing at the end of the game) it does cause a problem. The advice above is to focus on a few units at a time- this is problematic against death stars and opponenets with a good level of ability. Death Stars because even if you manage to wittle that massive unit down you can just run out of time and the game ends a draw with one or two models left. Against good opponents concentrating on a few units leaves your army vunerable to flank charges etc.

There are some good things in 8th, but I would like to see half VP's brought back for half a unit and units fleeing at the end of the battle to count as dead.

AmaroK
05-10-2011, 11:20
There are some good things in 8th, but I would like to see half VP's brought back for half a unit and units fleeing at the end of the battle to count as dead.

About the fleeing units I see no problem, but about the half VPīs coming back, this would need a rework of big spells of doom (purple, dwellers etc), as far as they can wipe out half of a unit quite easily. This would make people focus even more on magic/templates to score those points and play conservative, instead of trying to engage units to run them down (which is the most efective way to score the points, as well as some victory conditions like Blood and Glory scenario).

Yowzo
05-10-2011, 11:37
I would have to agree with this. By taking out partial VP (along with VP for units fleeing at the end of the game) it does cause a problem. The advice above is to focus on a few units at a time- this is problematic against death stars and opponenets with a good level of ability. Death Stars because even if you manage to wittle that massive unit down you can just run out of time and the game ends a draw with one or two models left. Against good opponents concentrating on a few units leaves your army vunerable to flank charges etc.

There are some good things in 8th, but I would like to see half VP's brought back for half a unit and units fleeing at the end of the battle to count as dead.

That's the way we do it here. After the first 8th tourney we houseruled that units below 50% strength give 50% VPs.

Likewise for monsters/stanks/bells/etc. below 50% wounds.

Eternus
05-10-2011, 11:40
Rules like Steadfast make it even more likely that units will die to a man rather than run away anyway, negating the need for half VP's if you get stuck in. I think this might only be an issue for armies that rely on shooting, which IMO is a prelude to the game decider which should be close combat.

eldargal
05-10-2011, 11:43
Am I the only one who likes the idea of a unit fighting to (almost) the last man to deny the enemy victory (points)?

Eternus
05-10-2011, 11:54
Am I the only one who likes the idea of a unit fighting to (almost) the last man to deny the enemy victory (points)?

No, that's the text between the lines on almost every page of the 8th edition rules...

Toshiro
05-10-2011, 12:00
Am I the only one who likes the idea of a unit fighting to (almost) the last man to deny the enemy victory (points)?

Nope, I like that a lot as well! We aint beat 'til we're beat kinda attitude. :D

Venkh
06-10-2011, 00:46
Pointless; Did you guys stop having fun?

Don't need to use the supplement (Assuming SoM)

The gamers around me and I have lots of fun, just not playing Fantasy any more.

Played 40k for a while (Dark Eldar got me back into that)

Now enjoying Aeronautica Imperialis, trawling E-Bay for Epic Eldar, playing Boardgames and just about to invest in Gripping Beasts 'Saga' system (which is amazing btw).

Perhaps its the fact that the two things that balance each out, massive buffed hordes and silly obscene magic are the two things I have always liked least in the game.

I dont like my games to be about one unit or one character with the other units there playing bit parts.

logan054
06-10-2011, 01:14
Rules like Steadfast make it even more likely that units will die to a man rather than run away anyway, negating the need for half VP's if you get stuck in. I think this might only be an issue for armies that rely on shooting, which IMO is a prelude to the game decider which should be close combat.

Not really, fights will usually last longer but I haven't seem that many fights to last man unless its something like 18 chaos warriors vs 30-40 orcs. I don't really have a massive issue with steadfast but it does kill flank charging, if you didn't reform on the unmodified leadership as well it wouldn't be half as bad.

Funny thing is I have always liked using infantry based armies rather than the old MSU cavalry lists everyone seemed to use in 7th yet I find 8th hard to enjoy. Main thing with 8th is that it has alot of good ideas which could have been implemented better, the winds of magic being random is great, only one of each spell is nice, encouraging people to use infantry great, hell I don't mind attacking in I order.

If they removed IR while keeping miscasts, tweaked a few spells it would be a lot more enjoyable, hell maybe add in some more scenarios!


Perhaps its the fact that the two things that balance each out, massive buffed hordes and silly obscene magic are the two things I have always liked least in the game.

I dont like my games to be about one unit or one character with the other units there playing bit parts.

Totally with you on this, its exactly why I never used dragon lords in the previous editions.

Jind_Singh
06-10-2011, 03:20
I really, REALLY don't understand this 'mega buff units of doom' nonsense floating around - large units hinder the enemy more than they hinder me!

Mega spells - am I the only one whose army hasn't been destroyed by a single spell???

I am not being argumentative here, I really just want to see how the 8th ed generates the posts that it does, as a die hard fan of 7th, who hated 8th initially, I personally think 8th is just amazing!

It's five times the game 7th was, infact 7th wasn't even worthy of being called Warhammer anymore, it wasn't even fun, 8th is wicked good.

Sure there are some STUPID things here and there but it's not a perfect world we live in either!

IcedCrow
06-10-2011, 03:42
I have yet to have an army destroyed by a single spell. I had the gateway spell go off on me once and I've had the metal spell that turns you into gold statues go off on me once. I've managed to shut down magic in the other games or kill the wizards fast enough where they didn't hurt me as bad, and I don't run deathstars so losing a unit doesn't kill me.

Zoolander
06-10-2011, 03:59
When 8th was released I loved it. i thought it finally brought back the fun and excitement I had found lacking in a lot of my games. I have been playing a lot recently and a few things continue to pop up that frustrate me.

1. The randomness:

I am tired of carefully setting up a charge only to roll 1" less than I need to get there. Sure, sometimes I make a charge that is 'impossible' with a good roll but these seem few and far between.

In magic you can never count on an average amount of dice, which makes planning all but impossible. Instead you have to spam wizards and items that may generate more dice.

2. Go big or go home.

The last few games I have been lost have primarily been because my opponents had a big horde. It's kill the horde or... lose. The bunkers, the hordes, the units of 50+... just not what I am into in a game. It takes so much out of the movement and tactics of setting up the right charges.

Spells. This has been discussed ad nauseum, so I will not bring it up again. But those who agree know what I mean.

Steadfast. As a skaven player, well I kinda love it. But it is a bit ridiculous. Sorry, there should be a way to break it.

Am i alone, or is anyone else just getting tired of 8th? I was halfway through a very enjoyable game today but I knew the whole time I could beat the horde of savage orcs, or lose. It was boring. I just kind of lost interest in playing at all because of it. Anyone else running into this?

You are not alone. In fact, I've noticed that armies are much more limited in their selection of units than they were in 7th, so the end result is that you will see the same units over and over. There is much less variety. I find 8th MUCH more boring than 7th. It's the same thing over and over. <yawn>

The randomness is a theme they are pushing lately (Dreadfleet is chalk full of it!), and while a little randomness has it's place, I feel they are leading their games away from skill-based decision making and more luck-based ones, which is too bad.

Those people that didn't like 7th really were disliking the army books, not the 7th ed rules. The rules were fine. What needed changing were the books. Of course, if you have no skill at the game, then you probably like 8th better, because you can win with zero skill. It's based on dice rolling now.

Rosstifer
06-10-2011, 04:25
You are not alone. In fact, I've noticed that armies are much more limited in their selection of units than they were in 7th, so the end result is that you will see the same units over and over. There is much less variety. I find 8th MUCH more boring than 7th. It's the same thing over and over. <yawn>

The randomness is a theme they are pushing lately (Dreadfleet is chalk full of it!), and while a little randomness has it's place, I feel they are leading their games away from skill-based decision making and more luck-based ones, which is too bad.

Those people that didn't like 7th really were disliking the army books, not the 7th ed rules. The rules were fine. What needed changing were the books. Of course, if you have no skill at the game, then you probably like 8th better, because you can win with zero skill. It's based on dice rolling now.

If 8th has no skill involved why is, say, the top 20 in the UK Rankings virtually the same as in 7th? If it was all down to dice surely they wouldn't all still be regularly winning tournaments or at least placing?

Zoolander
06-10-2011, 04:30
If 8th has no skill involved why is, say, the top 20 in the UK Rankings virtually the same as in 7th? If it was all down to dice surely they wouldn't all still be regularly winning tournaments or at least placing?

I didn't say there was no skill involved. I said if you had no skill, you can still win from time to time, because it involves LESS skill. And if you notice, the people that used to win 7th tourneys a lot don't win nearly as many, because of the randomness. Whether that's good or not is just opinion. I've lost too many games to crazy wacky dice rolls to count to really take the game seriously any longer.

papabearshane
06-10-2011, 04:31
You are not alone. In fact, I've noticed that armies are much more limited in their selection of units than they were in 7th, so the end result is that you will see the same units over and over. There is much less variety. I find 8th MUCH more boring than 7th. It's the same thing over and over. <yawn>

The randomness is a theme they are pushing lately (Dreadfleet is chalk full of it!), and while a little randomness has it's place, I feel they are leading their games away from skill-based decision making and more luck-based ones, which is too bad.

Those people that didn't like 7th really were disliking the army books, not the 7th ed rules. The rules were fine. What needed changing were the books. Of course, if you have no skill at the game, then you probably like 8th better, because you can win with zero skill. It's based on dice rolling now.

WOW! the bitterness is seeping through. :shifty: To each his own opinion I guess.

Yes 8th has some randomness but its not the Cav charging, Milimeter shuffiling debacle that was 7th. I love the fun games and Havent seen a Cookie Cutter list (minuse Ard Boyz Semies) Yet even in turnaments. I for one dont miss Terror Bombs and Fear auto breaking.

As far as Army books go I think any army book at the moment could Win in most standard None Cheese invironments. WE have even shown they can win (even though there is only one main build for turnys)

For me and my Local Groups 8th is awsome! Its still going strong and getting stronger with each new Kit and Book that comes out.

Zoolander
06-10-2011, 04:36
WOW! the bitterness is seeping through. :shifty: To each his own opinion I guess.


Yes, well, after paying as much money and spending as much time on the hobby as I have, only to be told a favorite army is no longer valid in 99% of the games you play, and the other 9 armies have all turned into cookie cutter builds, you'd be pretty bitter, too.

Rosstifer
06-10-2011, 04:38
And if you notice, the people that used to win 7th tourneys a lot don't win nearly as many, because of the randomness.

They still seem to win just as much in England and New Zeland, but admittedly those are the only two scenes I keep tabs on. Personally I've never lost a game just down to ridiculous dice or an uber spell, but I play 50/50 comped/uncomped so my view is skewed. I like 8th, and don't feel there is reallyless skill, but I understand those who feel differently.

papabearshane
06-10-2011, 04:47
Yes, well, after paying as much money and spending as much time on the hobby as I have, only to be told a favorite army is no longer valid in 99% of the games you play, and the other 9 armies have all turned into cookie cutter builds, you'd be pretty bitter, too.

Well I hope things go better for you. My 6 Armies are still all viable and none of them as yet has a Cookie cutter build. I for one have been using almost every unit in my books other then Swarms as the points and Crumbeling just sucks IMOP.

As far as Bitter goes I dont mind the changes that happen between editions as it forces me to paint more and refreshes my excitement for the Game.

Change is good but not always at first glance. 5th to 6th, 6th to 7th now 7th to 8th have all brought different changes but the fun is still there, people take a HOBBY way to seriously sometimes. It is a great hobby and Im still a terible general when drunk :D

Zoolander
06-10-2011, 06:49
They still seem to win just as much in England and New Zeland, but admittedly those are the only two scenes I keep tabs on. Personally I've never lost a game just down to ridiculous dice or an uber spell, but I play 50/50 comped/uncomped so my view is skewed. I like 8th, and don't feel there is reallyless skill, but I understand those who feel differently.

Really? My last game I played before I took my 7 month hiatus involved my Skaven army going down to defeat because the scenario randomly determined that 3/4 of my 300 man army would try to fit into a 9" x 9" square, which was impossible, so some units could not deploy at all. Add to the fun a river of light ran through the middle of it, forcing most of the units to take wounds, including my grey seer and more than half of his unit. All dead before the game even started. Whee!

Before that, I had the upper hand in my VC vs. LM game only to lose because my ghouls could not reach the combat in time to flank his temple guard deathstar, even after 3 charge attempts, and finally, they got the best of my smaller unit and won.

Before that, it was a game of my dark elf executioner deathstar versus his TG deathstar, while we both hurled uber spell #6 at each other's unit. Whoever got the spell off first was going to win. I did, and I won. No real skill involved in that fight. Anyone can hurl 6 dice at a spell.

Did this sort of thing happen in 7th? Sure, but just not as often or to this degree. There was simply less randomness involved, meaning by default, the game relied more on skill, and outmaneuvering your opponent. In 8th, there is less focus on out maneuvering your opponent and more focus on building a deathstar to march into the center of the table to roll a bunch of dice to see who randomly wins. Meanwhile, casting uber spell #6 at your opponent's deathstar to prevent that. I can see how people enjoy that, and I definitely see a lot of changes in 8th that I appreciate, but the game has predictably become very cookie cutter in formula. It's not all bad, I just miss the strategy I had in 7th.

I may be a minority, but I've paid thousands of dollars to the GW gods, and they aren't getting any more from me. According to what I've been hearing from store owners, GW sales are very low right now. The last GT here usually carried 18 people and it only had 10... and only one store was running it, which usually there are 4 or 5. At the convention here month ago, there were only half the tables with GW games (the other half was hordes). Normally, they fill the entire room. The local store here used to run a monthly tournament and had a league. Neither exist today, due to lack of players. Before you say that it's just my area, I live in LA with 12 million+ people, and more stores than I can shake a stick at, including one of only three battle bunkers. So I know there are plenty of others that are fed up with the price gouging and the 8th ed rules besides me.

But if you enjoy 8th, have at it! There is nothing wrong with that, to each his own. I like chocolate ice cream, some people like vanilla. I think vanilla is plain and boring, but that's just me. :p

Zoolander
06-10-2011, 06:51
Well I hope things go better for you. My 6 Armies are still all viable and none of them as yet has a Cookie cutter build. I for one have been using almost every unit in my books other then Swarms as the points and Crumbeling just sucks IMOP.

As far as Bitter goes I dont mind the changes that happen between editions as it forces me to paint more and refreshes my excitement for the Game.

Change is good but not always at first glance. 5th to 6th, 6th to 7th now 7th to 8th have all brought different changes but the fun is still there, people take a HOBBY way to seriously sometimes. It is a great hobby and Im still a terible general when drunk :D

Thanks. I appreciate your optimism! At least I can finally play my Tomb Kings...

Eternus
06-10-2011, 08:42
Can I ask how it is that there is even such a thing as cookie cutter builds anymore if people don't know what the scenario will be before the battle? Unless we're talking baout cookie cutters of the ultimate balanced list of course?!

IcedCrow
06-10-2011, 13:26
I didn't say there was no skill involved. I said if you had no skill, you can still win from time to time, because it involves LESS skill. And if you notice, the people that used to win 7th tourneys a lot don't win nearly as many, because of the randomness. Whether that's good or not is just opinion. I've lost too many games to crazy wacky dice rolls to count to really take the game seriously any longer.

Less skill huh? lol. If guessing inches on a table is a skill, then I'm ok with the people who can't do that well being able to make a game of things now instead of being able to eyeball an eighth of an inch.

If you took the game seriously in the first place, that might be the first problem. There really wasn't much "skill" in the last edition either. If you want to exercise your skill, play a game that does not involve any dice... like chess.

logan054
06-10-2011, 13:29
Can I ask how it is that there is even such a thing as cookie cutter builds anymore if people don't know what the scenario will be before the battle? Unless we're talking baout cookie cutters of the ultimate balanced list of course?!

Depends on your gaming environment, their are still plenty of people who don't use them, I just find it weird because a lot of these people also play 40k, to be perfectly honest alot of people who will use them are very easy to beat :(


Less skill huh? lol. If guessing inches on a table is a skill, then I'm ok with the people who can't do that well being able to make a game of things now instead of being able to eyeball an eighth of an inch.

If you took the game seriously in the first place, that might be the first problem. There really wasn't much "skill" in the last edition either. If you want to exercise your skill, play a game that does not involve any dice... like chess.

Atleast in the last edition their was a point to flank charge, now half the time their isn't a point, you may as well just push your models forward and see whos wizard blows up first, you are right warhammer has never been a massive tactical exercise but I think they have just reduced the amount of thought required to win.

IcedCrow
06-10-2011, 13:36
Depends on your gaming environment, their are still plenty of people who don't use them, I just find it weird because a lot of these people also play 40k, to be perfectly honest alot of people who will use them are very easy to beat :(



Atleast in the last edition their was a point to flank charge, now half the time their isn't a point, you may as well just push your models forward and see whos wizard blows up first, you are right warhammer has never been a massive tactical exercise but I think they have just reduced the amount of thought required to win.

We can agree to disagree. Yes there was a point to a flank charge in last edition. It was "I win".

You still have many advantages to a flank charge now, it's just not "I win" by itself. I've also seen several flank charges win conflicts and ended up turning or winning the game. So I can't buy the "flank charges have no point now, just toss your models forward and see whose wizard blows up first" because those aren't the games I'm seeing or playing in.

Note that doesn't mean I think 8th is some tactical exercise, it's just as easy as it was in 7th to me.

Eternus
06-10-2011, 13:40
So many people have said this already, but there is not less skill involved in playing 8th or 7th, just a different set of skills required to be successful. 7th required keen judgement within set parameters, 8th requires a gamer to make the same judgements but accounting for a broader set of possible outcomes, which can be both more forgiving and less depending on the swing of the actual action.

logan054
06-10-2011, 13:46
We can agree to disagree. Yes there was a point to a flank charge in last edition. It was "I win".

You still have many advantages to a flank charge now, it's just not "I win" by itself. I've also seen several flank charges win conflicts and ended up turning or winning the game. So I can't buy the "flank charges have no point now, just toss your models forward and see whose wizard blows up first" because those aren't the games I'm seeing or playing in.

Well its certainly good it was toned down from a I win button, the only real reason to flank charge now is to get more models in combat, unless you charge a unit and manage to maintain equal or higher ranks they will just turn to face because of steadfast. So really in many cases the impact it will have on the game is minimal, if steadfast didn't allow you to reform on a unmodified leadership it wouldn't be so bad.


So many people have said this already, but there is not less skill involved in playing 8th or 7th, just a different set of skills required to be successful. 7th required keen judgement within set parameters, 8th requires a gamer to make the same judgements but accounting for a broader set of possible outcomes, which can be both more forgiving and less depending on the swing of the actual action.

Your post seems to indicate that people who complain are not able to adapt to the new set of skills hence the complaining, Personally found no problem adapting to 8th, I just dislike certain things which has nothing to do with the "skill" set required to play the game.

Eternus
06-10-2011, 13:54
Your post seems to indicate that people who complain are not able to adapt to the new set of skills hence the complaining, Personally found no problem adapting to 8th, I just dislike certain things which has nothing to do with the "skill" set required to play the game.

Which is absolutely fine, as you are debating from a point of knowledge, unlike some people I know who are dislike 8th because they can't successfully play it as if it were 7th.

logan054
06-10-2011, 14:01
I think the main thing is alot of people had got bored with 7th, when they heard about 8th they got very excited and raised their hopes to high which sadly had lead to disappointment. For me I disliked the direction warhammer started to take when they released the HE book, everything since then has done nothing to create a better game. I still hold hope they will do something that doesn't require you to play with a set group of people and create a list of house rules to create a enjoyable gaming experience, its the main reason I will never go to a throne of skulls event for warhammer.

IcedCrow
06-10-2011, 14:20
Well its certainly good it was toned down from a I win button, the only real reason to flank charge now is to get more models in combat, unless you charge a unit and manage to maintain equal or higher ranks they will just turn to face because of steadfast. So really in many cases the impact it will have on the game is minimal, if steadfast didn't allow you to reform on a unmodified leadership it wouldn't be so bad.

This is true, this is also why I try to team up my units. A unit cannot reform if it is engaged in the front as well as the flank. That requires some thought and tactical "skill" to set up properly.

If I just toss a unit into your flank, odds are I can win combat, but your steadfast will keep you around, provided I didn't cast a spell or use an item to lower your leadership (somethign I have begun doing a lot more than relying strictly on damage spells).

Typically I like to run a cav unit alongside a mainline infantry unit. It is not always going to work but often I can engage on both sides, esp considering the popular meta seems to be one or two mega units, which is easy to maneuver against when you have more units than they do.

logan054
06-10-2011, 14:38
I think it depends on the unit your up against, if its a large unit (well more than likely) then chances are your still going to be faced with a stubborn unit, while your two units are locked in combat you opponent now has the chance to flank your more vital unit which you have just made easier by locking two units in combat with a single unit.

Chances are if its a weak unit you have just locked 600-700pts in combat for several turns, I don't believe flanking should be as it was but I think it needs to be more than getting extra models in combat. Going in front isn't always a good idea, especially against a horde unit as you now giving you opponent a bucket load of extra attacks and potential CR, sure they can't reform but they may now need to now, if its a weak unit in the front then they will be hard pressed to survive long enough to stop the enemy from reforming.

nurgle5
06-10-2011, 14:44
Of course, if you have no skill at the game, then you probably like 8th better, because you can win with zero skill.

I didn't say there was no skill involved.
Somehow, it came across that way in your original post.



It's based on dice rolling now.

As opposed to previous editions of warhammer?

IcedCrow
06-10-2011, 14:48
I think it depends on the unit your up against, if its a large unit (well more than likely) then chances are your still going to be faced with a stubborn unit, while your two units are locked in combat you opponent now has the chance to flank your more vital unit which you have just made easier by locking two units in combat with a single unit.

Chances are if its a weak unit you have just locked 600-700pts in combat for several turns, I don't believe flanking should be as it was but I think it needs to be more than getting extra models in combat. Going in front isn't always a good idea, especially against a horde unit as you now giving you opponent a bucket load of extra attacks and potential CR, sure they can't reform but they may now need to now, if its a weak unit in the front then they will be hard pressed to survive long enough to stop the enemy from reforming.

Flanking provides you with a +1 combat resolution and negates enemy ranks, furthering your combat resolution, which means you are forcing them to take more break checks.

Nothing is 100% though. Everything we talk about on here is situational.

AmaroK
06-10-2011, 14:54
You are not alone. In fact, I've noticed that armies are much more limited in their selection of units than they were in 7th, so the end result is that you will see the same units over and over. There is much less variety. I find 8th MUCH more boring than 7th. It's the same thing over and over. <yawn>

Of course, if you have no skill at the game, then you probably like 8th better, because you can win with zero skill. It's based on dice rolling now.


Really? My last game I played before I took my 7 month hiatus involved my Skaven army going down to defeat because the scenario randomly determined that 3/4 of my 300 man army would try to fit into a 9" x 9" square, which was impossible, so some units could not deploy at all. Add to the fun a river of light ran through the middle of it, forcing most of the units to take wounds, including my grey seer and more than half of his unit. All dead before the game even started. Whee!

In 8th, there is less focus on out maneuvering your opponent and more focus on building a deathstar to march into the center of the table to roll a bunch of dice to see who randomly wins.

Oddly enough, you complain first about how 8th is again and again the same, less varied, yet when some stuff that is designed to counter that (examples, rivers or certain deployements) you complain again.

If you have to design a list taking into account the 6 scenarios (20 core infantry for watchtower, several standards for blood and glory, antishooting/machine hunters for battle of the pass, army not totally based on leadership bubbles for random deployement of the dawn attack scenario etc), as well as able to deal with de d6+4 terrain pieces (many of them magical), I can tell you some of those units that were not that good suddenly have their purpose, and many more builds can be viable.

About 8th being focused less on building a deathstar, Iīm sure I have seen units of 60+ dark elf shades with several assassins in 7th, graveguard or blood knights deathstars with regen banners and characters and so on. The very concept of deathstar unit appeared in 7th, so I donīt think its a problem of this edition. Besides, with the "certainties" of 7th, the deathstar mentality was a sure bet, at least now you have some "randomness" about their performance, so they may involve more risk than before.

Talking about maneuvering, it is still there, in fact it is more possible as far as it is harder to be march blocked, affected by frenzy or most of the terrain. And of course you can pre-measure. And donīt forget swift reform. What it got more random is charging, but not maneuvering. And I have to say it has the same importance that it had before, just some slightly different mechanics.

Finally, your sentence implying that you will like 8th more if you have less skill is somewhat insulting for those who like this edition. Maybe that wasnīt your intention, but thatīs how it sounds.

Eternus
06-10-2011, 15:28
You know what I think plays a big part in the debate between 7th and 8th - some people, maybe subconciously, are analytical and logically minded to a point where they are to some degree uncomfortable with the concept of uncertainty, which 8th has in spades. That's not to say that there is anything the matter with these people, far from it, it's probably what makes them generally good at things like strategy games, but the big shift from certainty in many areas of 7th to uncertainty in most areas in 8th just makes them feel all prickly inside, messes with their mojo somehow...

...I love a bit of uncertaintly in my games. Even at work, when the crud is hitting the fan, the more the people around me start to display signs of panic, the calmer I feel. I like the idea of making decisions on the fly based on my own judgement rather than trying to plan everything out to the nth degree. I even like the idea of having a bit of faith in my models to do what I need them to (Dwarfs of Clan Grubbinsson, I'm lookiing at you!).

Urgat
06-10-2011, 15:31
Before that, I had the upper hand in my VC vs. LM game only to lose because my ghouls could not reach the combat in time to flank his temple guard deathstar, even after 3 charge attempts, and finally, they got the best of my smaller unit and won.

Before that, it was a game of my dark elf executioner deathstar versus his TG deathstar, while we both hurled uber spell #6 at each other's unit. Whoever got the spell off first was going to win. I did, and I won. No real skill involved in that fight. Anyone can hurl 6 dice at a spell.

Anyone can also not put everything in one unit and then not kindda autolose the moment said unit is trashed.

IcedCrow
06-10-2011, 15:36
Anyone can also not put everything in one unit and then not kindda autolose the moment said unit is trashed.

Exactly. If you take a deathstar and cram everything into it, then when you lose that unit and lose the game, that's all on you, not the edition. I have seen *a lot* of this and have heard *a lot* of complaining about it when person loses the game due to their own fault of composing and fielding their army in such a way...


You know what I think plays a big part in the debate between 7th and 8th - some people, maybe subconciously, are analytical and logically minded to a point where they are to some degree uncomfortable with the concept of uncertainty, which 8th has in spades.

This is also very true I've found in the many debates on this topic that have been around for a long time now.

The desire for chess-tactics is seated in the desire to know that tactic A will always work, whereas in this edition Tactic A may not always work. this is then construed as "less tactical" because tactic A does not work 100%, which I find to be a logical-error. Having to have back up plans and depth in your tactics is something I find to be highly engaging.

Eternus
06-10-2011, 15:42
And as for Deathstars generally, there is more in 8th to threaten them than in 7th, so though some DS's are truely awful to face, they are now a much bigger risk than in 7th, what with no more partials etc. These are what the uber spells were designed to counter I think.

IcedCrow
06-10-2011, 15:46
Use scenarios. Don't go to games where it's always pitched battles. Don't tailor lists. You will find deathstars get kicked in the junk quite hard.

logan054
06-10-2011, 16:08
Flanking provides you with a +1 combat resolution and negates enemy ranks, furthering your combat resolution, which means you are forcing them to take more break checks.

Nothing is 100% though. Everything we talk about on here is situational.

+1 combat res and negating the rank bonus matters little if you are up against a stubborn unit, you could win combat by 100 and it would still be a unmodified leadership test. I personally don't feel that always striking in I order is needed either, when most units are stubborn +1 res for charging matters little, for me I think step up was enough of a bonus for units to prevent the front ranks being destroyed and then ASF wouldn't of needed changing creating even more problems.


You know what I think plays a big part in the debate between 7th and 8th - some people, maybe subconciously, are analytical and logically minded to a point where they are to some degree uncomfortable with the concept of uncertainty, which 8th has in spades. That's not to say that there is anything the matter with these people, far from it, it's probably what makes them generally good at things like strategy games, but the big shift from certainty in many areas of 7th to uncertainty in most areas in 8th just makes them feel all prickly inside, messes with their mojo somehow...


Use scenarios. Don't go to games where it's always pitched battles. Don't tailor lists. You will find deathstars get kicked in the junk quite hard.

I do like them, they certainly help, problem is getting people to use the damn things, if you only play with people who will use them then you certainly limit the player pool, its abit like only playing people who have SoM or only playing Apoc games, something you will never catch me playing is SoM, I'm sure that will surprise alot of people ;)

Well I think your certainly right here, I don't mind the random charges so much as it eliminates the old issues of charging and takes some of the maths hammer out of the game, I don't like how much variation their is in the charging distances, I actually don't mind the random winds of magic, I like that they created a system that allows a player to take part in the magic phase without having to go all or nothing, magic lores is another thing all together which we have all covered over and over again.


And as for Deathstars generally, there is more in 8th to threaten them than in 7th, so though some DS's are truely awful to face, they are now a much bigger risk than in 7th, what with no more partials etc. These are what the uber spells were designed to counter I think.

Thing is uber spells don't just counter DS's, they counter everything very effectively , I prefer how psykers got changed for 40k, I think something like that is long overdue for warhammer.

Sexiest_hero
06-10-2011, 16:09
I'm getting tired of the flank is useless rant. you get +1 combat res, negate ranks, deny supporting attacks AND parry saves while getting your own. It's an great place to put monsters and cav. If you want to use those units in the front of 100 guys don't get sad when they get dragged down. Steadfast matters little if you have more ranks. And even if they have more ranks, they won't for long taking those massive losses.

IcedCrow
06-10-2011, 16:13
Exactly. Just because you can't reliably break someone with a flank charge does not make it useless. I have seen it and used it to great effect still.

Eternus
06-10-2011, 16:34
Thing is uber spells don't just counter DS's, they counter everything very effectively , I prefer how psykers got changed for 40k, I think something like that is long overdue for warhammer.

True, although magic is now really powerful once or twice a game, it's also very unreliable and very risky getting those big spells off. How many people are taking advantage of all the cool new scrolls that turn Wizards into frogs and stuff? Not many I bet. There are so many new anti Wizard toys to play with...

...Having issues with enemy Wizards throwing a bucket load of dice at a spell? Try the Feedback Scroll...

IcedCrow
06-10-2011, 16:46
I'm not a fan of the uber spells either, but I still have not lost a game to one. I've seen people lose a game to them, but they typically lose because they had all of their weapons in one unit and then a spell removed that unit.

I've had big spells go off in my face but when I have my guns spread around the table, losing a unit doesn't cripple me. It may hurt, but it's not game over any longer.

logan054
06-10-2011, 16:52
Exactly. Just because you can't reliably break someone with a flank charge does not make it useless. I have seen it and used it to great effect still.

Heres the think with flank charges, its not as easy to even pull off with all the reforms you can do now, if you manage to get in the flank after arsing about for several turns and avoiding being charged you then have to basically charge a much weaker unit for it to be worthwhile. If its not a weaker unit then you need a bucket load of attacks in order to grind through the unit in order to reduce the ranks. If its a weaker unit you could have charged it head on anyways, took you loses like a man and break the unit much quicker and move on, I guess in short being useful is situational.


True, although magic is now really powerful once or twice a game, it's also very unreliable and very risky getting those big spells off. How many people are taking advantage of all the cool new scrolls that turn Wizards into frogs and stuff? Not many I bet. There are so many new anti Wizard toys to play with...

...Having issues with enemy Wizards throwing a bucket load of dice at a spell? Try the Feedback Scroll...

Well turning wizards into frogs is useful on a low level wizard, if your using it on a low level wizard then chances are it isn't going to be game breaking, you may as well taken other magic defense items with will have a bigger impact (+1 to your dispel rolls every turn will have a greater effect), A feedback scroll is what 2 wounds if they roll 6 dice and then after a wardsave 1? thats hardly worth 50pts considering you have to let the spell through and can't even be used against IR force (yeah I tried it a few times :p). How many times do you really need to cast a broken spell for it to be game winning, once, maybe twice? at which point you have a very good chance of losing your wizard and any magic defense you had, the problem with magic is made worse because of certain 7th ed items and characters which didn't get errated with 8th in mind. My issue with magic is who ever kills the wizard first wins in 90% of the games I have played which is very much like who ever killed the lord on a dragon first wins, same dynamic as before which annoyed me no end in 7th.

IcedCrow
06-10-2011, 16:54
I have had the opposite experience. Flank charging has been easy for me beacuse my opponents field fewer units (but with tons of models) and I field mid sized units, and as well I field a lot of chaffe so even playing WoC I outnumber people.

My last game I outnumbered the skaven guy in model-count.

So I have had little difficulty flanking with my cav units because they have to choose between a big infantry unit coming their way or the cav unit coming from their side.

The end result is that lately I win a lot of my combats and eventually break them, even while they are steadfast.

Granted that's just from my experience and that's also a result of my playstyle vs the normal playstyle of fielding fewer but larger units.

Lord Solar Plexus
06-10-2011, 16:55
+1 combat res and negating the rank bonus matters little if you are up against a stubborn unit, you could win combat by 100 and it would still be a unmodified leadership test.


I apologize for what may sound like a biting tone but I see that you have understood the "steadfast" rule. ;) It works pretty much as intended: It finally, after so many years, gives otherwise crappy infantry a viable role in the game.



when most units are stubborn


That makes very little sense, despite the fact that many people repeat this. You could possibly say "most of the units I charge are stubborn" but it is a fact that less than 50 percent of the combatant units in any game are stubborn, as only one side can be steadfast, minus those occasions where none is because of equal ranks.


Heres the think with flank charges, its not as easy to even pull off with all the reforms you can do now, if you manage to get in the flank after arsing about for several turns and avoiding being charged you then have to basically charge a much weaker unit for it to be worthwhile.


Ahem. You just said that everyone or most units will never run away because everyone is steadfast. If that is true, why all the hassle? Just let one of your units be charged and flank charge on your turn.

In any case, your assessment does not hold much water. Flanking can easily mean the difference between winning and losing a fight. Getting hit by three or 21 Bloodletters is quite a difference, would you not agree?



If its not a weaker unit then you need a bucket load of attacks in order to grind through the unit in order to reduce the ranks.


Uh, what?!? :confused: Strong units do not have 10 ranks. Could you please explain to me why units consisting of fighty, expensive models lose against your charge - from what you've said, they are steadfast, and for that to make any sense, they must need resort to it - but still outrank you?

Considering that you usually need a bucketload of attacks to grind down the ranks of extremely crappy and inexpensive troops, I simply do not understand your train of thought.



If its a weaker unit you could have charged it head on anyways, took you loses like a man and break the unit much quicker and move on, I guess in short being useful is situational.

Too black and white. Whether a unit is strong depends on where you attack it. Attack Clanrats with Empire Swordsmen/Halberdiers or vice versa frontally, and you may win or lose. Attack them from the flank and they become much weaker.