PDA

View Full Version : Favorite and most Hated thing about 8th Ed.



Petey
17-10-2012, 19:14
It seems that 8th Ed is the most popular edition so far (current results of Warseer Pole), and I was wondering what are people's most favorite and most hated rules from this edition.

For me, the changes to infantry (steadfast, step up, hordes) are my favorite change.

What I hate is that terrain rules are lame. (terrain doesn't slow you down, and doesn't do much damage to units going through it)

What do you guys think?

Kalandros
17-10-2012, 19:38
I hate half the scenarios - Watch Tower being the most stupid of scenarios for a game like Warhammer. Seriously - I never played this scenario and would refuse to play it at a tournament. Its just such a bad design.
Customized scenarios based on rulebook scenarios though, im fine with!

Anyway, hate Cannons hitting both rider and mount - its fine for other template weapons because they aren't S10 D6W weapons. Another complete fail

Steadfast not negated by Disruption, might as well throw maneuvering out the window (but heeeeey, a forest removes your steadfast, its better than any tactical genius!!)

I love the fact that we aren't slowed down by forests anymore, man that stuff was annoying!

I love/hate the magic phase - if the "killer spells" allowed magic resist and maybe forced a test for each wound and not killing outright,... that'd be better but then some super deathstars might have it too easy?

Von Wibble
17-10-2012, 19:49
Favourite -Stepping up rule.

In between - magic - completely agree with Kalandros' point above

Most Hated - Limited effects of terrain and by extension lack of reason to include a lot of skirmisher type troops.

IcedCrow
17-10-2012, 19:51
Steadfast bringing back infantry so armies are armies.

Hate: magic dominating the game and disruption not canceling out steadfast. Coupled with the all or nothing points system enforces mandatory level 4s and death stars.

Urgat
17-10-2012, 20:02
Favourite? Dunno, plenty
Most hated? New skirmisher rule I'd say.

The Low King
17-10-2012, 20:03
Favorite: Step up rule and random charges

Most hated: VP scoring rules and IF magic rules




Watch Tower being the most stupid of scenarios for a game like Warhammer. Seriously - I never played this scenario and would refuse to play it at a tournament. Its just such a bad design.


How do you know its a bad scenario if you have never played it?

Malorian
17-10-2012, 20:07
Favorite: Steadfast

Hated: Disruption not taking away steadfast.

Rotgut
17-10-2012, 21:03
Favorite: The close combat changes - step up, steadfast, supporting attacks, combat reforms...
Hated: Cannons

Kayosiv
17-10-2012, 22:07
Favorite: Random charges. I like this rule a lot. It helped slow things get into combat faster and helps infantry get into the game while also making it so cavalry is faster but not uncatachable. The only thing that kind of bugs me is that monstrous beasts are swiftstride but monsters are not, which seems really weird.

Least Favorite: Cannons becoming d6 wounds and hitting rider and mount. In a game where things generally have between 1 and 6 hit points, anything that deals 1-6 damage is pretty bad design. The fact that cannons wound everything on 2's and are statistically more accurate than other war machine compounds the sillyness. Balistic skill mattering as well as d3 wounds would be fine for cannons. If they needed to have their rules strengthened against infantry as a result, so be it.

As a side note, the challenge rules having to do with mounts are also very dumb.

The bearded one
17-10-2012, 22:58
Favourite; the general tweaks to charging and combat that brought infantry back in the game; random charges, the change in charging that you only need to make the minimum distance and then get unlimited movement allowing manoeuvres, supporting attacks, casualties from the back, steadfast. I love it, it fixed a large part of what was wrong with 7th edition.

Least favourite: the all-or-nothing rules on VP. That's just stupid. Also removing gradations of victories and only leaving win-loss-draw. Luckily almost all tournaments houserule that anyway (in the netherlands generally 50% vp for fleeing units and units under 25%, and using the 20-0 VP system.)

Also a shame disruption doesn't cancel steadfast. It's really more or less these things that would've instantly made the edition better and tactically challenging.

StygianBeach
17-10-2012, 23:40
Favorite: Step up rule and random charges



Most Hated: True Line of Sight. I liked that Forests no longer halved movement, I was not happy to learn that they no longer blocked line of sight. My forest is now merely 3 trees.

FashaTheDog
18-10-2012, 00:28
Bear in mind I went from 3rd to 8th so I had something of a hard shift. I hate the loss of push backs and push back pivots after resolving combat as well no more wrap around by larger units. On the plus side of things, being able to get games in is always good and toned down magic without removing level 4 spells is good too.

Tarliyn
18-10-2012, 00:31
Favorite- step up, magic phase rules (not nesscarily spells), magical terrain

Least favorite- steadfast not being distrupted, terrain not blocking los, really true los in general, horde rule (doest do what it was intended to do)

That about covers it. I like the current edition. I would change a few things but overall pretty happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Xerkics
18-10-2012, 00:39
I like stepping up and hate cannons.

Sh4d0w
18-10-2012, 01:10
Favorite: Random charges. I like this rule a lot. It helped slow things get into combat faster and helps infantry get into the game while also making it so cavalry is faster but not uncatachable. The only thing that kind of bugs me is that monstrous beasts are swiftstride but monsters are not, which seems really weird.

Least Favorite: Cannons becoming d6 wounds and hitting rider and mount. In a game where things generally have between 1 and 6 hit points, anything that deals 1-6 damage is pretty bad design. The fact that cannons wound everything on 2's and are statistically more accurate than other war machine compounds the sillyness. Balistic skill mattering as well as d3 wounds would be fine for cannons. If they needed to have their rules strengthened against infantry as a result, so be it.

As a side note, the challenge rules having to do with mounts are also very dumb.

Not this cannon thing again :/ After significant discussion the majority decided to keeps cannons as they were because they just wouldn't be effective at d3 wounds. Check out my cannon thread for more details.

Jind_Singh
18-10-2012, 01:47
I hate cannons - I would like:

1) Cannons hit either rider or the monster
2) If a cannon ball goes through a forest roll an artillary die, reduce the distance travelled by this much. Also if you roll a misfire the ball is stuck in trees!
3) Once you establish a spot on the battlefield to fire the cannon ball roll a scatter die and D3 - I can't stand how laser guided the stupid cannon balls are!!

(And I own 6 cannons for my Empire army so it's not like I don't get to use them!)

I hate terrian!

Forests

ALL units should not be able to march through woods with taking a DT test - ever tried marching in a wood? it's dangerous! Unless your forest striders!

Buildings

Should be a limit to how many models can enter a building, based on common sense. Ever seen 100 Night Goblins climb into a small hut? I have, looks stupid!

Magic

Magic resistance - it's a step in the right direction but too bad it doesn't help enough!

Uber spells - not bad but some of them are a bit too uber! Some slight changes to the nasty spells would have been nice

Victory points

If a unit is reduced to half strength you get say 25% of the points (this stops the 'lets shoot the unit of 30 to 15 and then focus efforts elsewhere but still makes it so effort is rewarded)

DaemonReign
18-10-2012, 02:09
Favorite(s):
Steadfast, stepping-up, random charges, the Horde-rule.
Simply the way the game plays and looks these days.

Neutral:
The Magic Phase. Too bad about the dice-cap, only excuse is the fact that those über-spells exist (and they are just fine btw).
Cannons - agree they should scatter so that you can't reliably hit individual infantry, agree they shouldn't ping-pong between rider and mount - you could also give them D3 wounds but in that case I would give them Heroic Killing Blow too.
Terrain - it tends to work just fine if you've upgraded your use of it to the standards of 8th Edition. A forest is supposed to be much bigger than they were in 7th Ed, for example.

Hate:
Lack of Army Specific Magic Items.
Sloppy rules-development.
Lack of playtesting/proof-reading.
Simply a lot of pet-peeves.. Nothing that ruins the fun, I guess, but a lot of stuff that could have been worked over one or two more times..

Treg Almighty
18-10-2012, 03:09
Favorite: Steadfast

Hated: Disruption not taking away steadfast.

Exactly this...

I love steadfast, step up and horde, as well as random charges and the magic phase. Hate MR being lame, and some of the crazy high level spells.

Contrary to some of the other posts, I really like the terrain rules. I enjoy the random element, but also that they can be moved through and don't bottleneck deployments

Havock
18-10-2012, 04:00
Terrain - it tends to work just fine if you've upgraded your use of it to the standards of 8th Edition. A forest is supposed to be much bigger than they were in 7th Ed, for example.


It's just not practical: any forest with enough trees in it would prohibit any units from being placed in it. True Line of Sight on a wargame of this scale is stupid. Skirmish games are fine but at this size some abstraction is required.

ie.
Hate:
-True Line of Sight
-Steadfast being such a fail-safe method.
-Laser guided cannonballs.
-Ridiculous spells
-simplistic but complicated game, but GW has a tendency for that with their legacy systems.
-The absurd cost of the game, 7th was fairly cheap because of the cavalry dominance, 8th ed will eat your wallet. I minimize the damage by playing tin-can Warriors of Chaos but we don't really get new players.

Like:
-They made infantry better (but shafted cavalry in the **** to do so)
-I can play a tournament with a massive hangover and still end up in the top 3.

Meh:
-Loss of guessing and no more partials makes template weapons potentially too powerful.
- Not much of a challenge in a tactical sense, but I am used to Infinity, Warmahordes and Battletech by now, which have much better rulesets (as in: well written) with a greater emphasis on the tactical decisions part rather than a beer & pretzel dice rolling game. Which is what Warhammer has become, imho.

Urgat
18-10-2012, 07:24
Most Hated: True Line of Sight. I liked that Forests no longer halved movement, I was not happy to learn that they no longer blocked line of sight. My forest is now merely 3 trees.

Get trees that block LoS, that works too :p

Ratarsed
18-10-2012, 07:54
I like the random charge moves, Horde rules, steadfast and support attacks along with fighting on initiative steps. I like the magic better in that it can now have a massive impact on the game, but remains unreliable and fickle. Terrain works way better than it did and the mysterious terrain effects are great fun. The added scenarios are also all great. The army selection criteria provide loads more freedom whilst managing to keep armies reasonably balanced. All in all it adds up to a more dynamic free flowing less fiddly style of game where big stuff happens which can turn the game in a instant. I love it!

What I hate most is Cannon balls hitting both rider and monster in a single shot. Wrong wrong wrong! :mad:

samael
18-10-2012, 08:43
Like : Being allowed to measure anything and everything,steadfast, stepping up and the random charge range.
Hate (with a vengeance): the true line of sight rules :mad:

Snake1311
18-10-2012, 09:23
Like: Almost everything about the edition - premeasuring, army composition, cleanup of magic items.

Dislike: There are like 3-4 spells that are too strong and give the entire magic phase a bad name (biggest offender is dwellers!). Max dice at a spell should have really been 5. Units should have a maximum size to prevent stupidity.

Kalandros
18-10-2012, 09:43
Not this cannon thing again :/ After significant discussion the majority decided to keeps cannons as they were because they just wouldn't be effective at d3 wounds. Check out my cannon thread for more details.

D6 Wounds is fine... on certain conditions
Cannons are too accurate, the way they are fired needs to change completely.
They should only hit rider or mount, NEVER EVER both, this has put almost every ridden monster into hibernation until another edition.

No one wants to take a goblin great shaman on aracharok because then the shaman and the spider takes a S10 D6 wounds, and not only once, many times in the same game because the cannons are just too damn accurate its retarded.

StygianBeach
18-10-2012, 09:53
Get trees that block LoS, that works too :p

Imagine deploying that forest.... I guess the point of the rule was to encourage use of Terrain other than Trees.. I could always aquire Large walls I suppose... and paint them green...

cptcosmic
18-10-2012, 11:02
D6 Wounds is fine... on certain conditions
Cannons are too accurate, the way they are fired needs to change completely.
They should only hit rider or mount, NEVER EVER both, this has put almost every ridden monster into hibernation until another edition.

No one wants to take a goblin great shaman on aracharok because then the shaman and the spider takes a S10 D6 wounds, and not only once, many times in the same game because the cannons are just too damn accurate its retarded.
problem is that cannons are resolved like templates but template rules dont fit cannons at all and cause alot of problems. I dont understand why cannons are templates, it just does not make sense, it looks like a lazy solution from GW.

DaemonReign
18-10-2012, 11:45
It's just not practical: any forest with enough trees in it would prohibit any units from being placed in it.

I Think I know what you mean because one of my mates gets like this when we're setting up the game-board too at times.
It's got me absolutely dumb-founded: We could flip a switch on our computers and essentially play the same thing in a 'computer game', but instead - for some mysterious reason - we spend countless hours (not to mention Money!) on building and painting Everything from meticulous Little regiments to houses and hills and other terrain-pieces.. and then we set stuff up and re-enact a few minutes (tops!) Worth of combat in the gruesome pace of at least a few hours 'playing'.

And you (and my buddy) gets stuck up on a couple of extra trees being impractical... (?!) :eyebrows:

It blows my mind, it really does. :p

That said, if you use the new GW plastic forest set I can understand your greviance. We use individual trees (about 15-20 pieces per rolled 'Mysterious Forest', ideally) and units - on trays - look really good as they traverse such patches of naturalistic-looking terrain. Sure it takes a few extra minutes, but boy is it Worth it.

As an aside, we all hated True Line of Sight in our g-Group too when 8th was new.. It seemed arbitrary and appeared as a guarantee for lengthy arguments between opponants.. Then we gradually realized that TLoS really just gauges the maturity of the participants.. We found ourselves actually using TLoS despite swearing beforehand that we'd houserule it away, and after a while the whole subject became a non-issue.

danny-d-b
18-10-2012, 12:18
What is awesome about 8th- the fact you can show up with an empire army that would actually apear in the fluff (big blocks of infantry, plus support) and have a fair game rather than 7th is always the 'support' that won you the game, taking combat infantry was a waste of points cos cavalry would just charge and break you with out chance to attack back

whats bad- maybe the death of ridden monsters due to the treath of cannons and 'death stars' and 'deathstar killer' magic but over all its a lot lot better than 7th

logan054
18-10-2012, 12:24
-I can play a tournament with a massive hangover and still end up in the top 3.

Pfft, you could play a tournament pissed back in 7th with the HoC book, army just played itself really ;)

Anyways I have a few things I like and hate

Hate

True line of sight: What I dislike is not being able to shield models because you can see a small bit through legs infront, its silly, I also really dislike how you can no longer hide in a forest.
Terrain: What does it exactly do now? most of it is pointless....
Warmachine: 40k has the best system for this when it comes to templates, roll your scatter dice + 2D6, minus your BS, thats how far you scatter, makes sense and actually makes use of your BS, would work great for rocklobbers and the like, cannons need a new system that means the shoot can scatter of course.
Magic: I generally like how they changed the system back to 4th/5th ed days, however its the mega spells and IR force that are the problem which then make the changes to MR pointless.
Random Charges: I like the idea because it did remove the very annoying cat and mouse game we had, however it was taken to far which is why I don't like it.

Like

Making the game more focused on infantry: always loved the look of blocks of infantry on the table, some of the changes did take it to far, but I still enjoy taking me old army which people laughed at and it actually being very good.
Magic: Bar the mega spells and IR force I like it (so yes, it had to go in both)
Missions: Love them, so much more fun
Armybooks: Generally they seem far more balanced, I just hope they continue along theselines
No silly flying rules: Yes, I hate those in 40k, I'm glad they haven't added them to fantasy
Models: I do love a lot of the big kits they have released for 8th
Warhammer forge: Lots of even cooler models to use

I do still enjoy playing 8th when I get a chance, but I just think certain things need tweaking to make more fun, I don't mind the random element (even if some of it is a little to random), like why isn't charging charging D6+M and perhaps charging down a hill 2D6 + movement

Far2Casual
18-10-2012, 12:41
Favourite : Stepping up

Hatred : the warmachine rules (no crew influence on the accuracy, retarded effects like one-shooting monsters, sniping of characters or flying monsters, etc), the all-or-nothing magic phases (why can't we cast a lot of small spells instead of a single "if I cast it I win").

Snake1311
18-10-2012, 13:14
I do still enjoy playing 8th when I get a chance, but I just think certain things need tweaking to make more fun, I don't mind the random element (even if some of it is a little to random), like why isn't charging charging D6+M and perhaps charging down a hill 2D6 + movement

Because D6+M is a lot more random than 2D6+M :)

Everybody whining abount cannons and ridden monsters: it is true that teh cannon should only hit one; however ONLY if they give away points separately.

*Kills Dragon*
*Dragon Rider walks into nearest unit*
*No VPs*

^ bad times.

The Low King
18-10-2012, 13:22
I dont think terrain is pointless as many people keep saying:
-Impassible terrain and buildings really messes with large units if you try to move them around.
-Forests, swamps and barriers mess with cavalry and chariots
-Any mystical terrain has a massive effect on deployment and tactics. Ive had battles fought over a wizards tower or tower of blood and ive had battles where someone has deployed the opposite side of a board because of the bane stone over on one side.

Oogie boogie boss
18-10-2012, 13:23
Favourite things: Steadfast, Step Up, Horde.

'Meh' things: Magic. Generally the new rules are great, especially random power/dispel dice generation, but some spells are simply too powerful.

Things I don't like: The fact that disruption doesn't prevent steadfast. And the reduced usefulness and effect of skirmishers.

Bladelord
18-10-2012, 14:18
Like: Step up, Steadfast, Magic

Hate: Can't disrupt steadfast, terrain, true LoS, the Misscast table's lame, VP system, Shooting, BSB re-roll on everything, Standard of Discipline+General, Magic items (totally broken pts wise, 2+ AS shouldnt cost 45pts for Bretonnia etc), Supporting attacks favours high strength which is already better than more attacks, the new WAAAGH!

Ratarsed
18-10-2012, 14:36
(why can't we cast a lot of small spells instead of a single "if I cast it I win").
You can and do. It's up to you how you play. I hardly ever take the dreaded 13th prefering the chance to cast several of the other lesser spells. I had a magic phase recently when with a bit of luck I cast all 4 spells my Grey seer knew. (Wither, Bless with Filth, Death Frenzy and Skitterleap).

Big spells are very important and one of my likes. Big units need big spells as a counter otherwise death star issues would be worse. Dwellers is not so bad if you dont have all eggs in one basket. Most characters are Str4 and so pass their test 2/3rd of the time and the effect on units is proportionate to their size. Don't take such big units and Dwellers gets to the point of being not worth the effort. I find hexes and Augments have more influence on games than spells such as Dwellers or Purple Sun most of the time. It's just those few occasions which stick in players minds that gives the big spells a bad rep.

Have to agree with hatred of the all or nothing VPs. Monsters and riders should be seperate and units should give up half points as well.

As for cannons being too accurate exactly what is the chance of hitting say a single 20mm model? 50-60%? then there is to wound rolls and ward saves followed by the chance to roll a 1 on the number of wounds. Sure in some games a cannon can take out a big monster 1st shot, but in others they do nothing. Over the course of games I think they even out to being faily pointed (empire cannons that is, WLC are too cheap!)

.

arthurfallz
18-10-2012, 15:19
Like
* Step-Up and Steadfast
* TLOS; bare minimum maturity makes this a good rule (though I like WarmaHordes rules better)
* New Army Books; they're well balanced

Hate
* Glacial release schedule for armybooks; 1 every 3 months is bare minimum of what I consider acceptable
* The Magic Phase: it's too "all or nothing"
* Magic Resistance: utter crap, nice when it applies, useless because when it applies is so rare
* Random Charge Distance: 2d6+M is too much. Even with my cavalry bonus (3d6+M, take best 2 dice) my cavalry has trouble charging twice their move distance sometimes :confused:
* Artillery/Cannons: I would like the crew to matter a little more, think Cannons hitting both rider/monster is too much
* Thunderstomp: most creatures that have it already have several attacks with high Strength; it should have been at a fixed Strength
* Old Armies: Playing with an army that hasn't been updated is beyond frustrating

BigbyWolf
18-10-2012, 15:27
Favourite- Changes to infantry make it a bit more "realistic".

Hated- Made my magicless VC army unusable (although a part of this is down to the 8th edition VC book, as well as 8th in general).

Also the lack of range-guessing makes my skill at guessing ranges pointless. It's not uncommon to see me stumbling along a street these days, bottle of strong liquor in one hand, tape measure in the other, pointing at two random spots on the floor and mumbling about them being "exactly 24.5 inches apart...". :(

Havock
18-10-2012, 15:42
Pfft, you could play a tournament pissed back in 7th with the HoC book, army just played itself really ;)


Yeah but the ruleset was a bit more punishing towards slip ups.

Nowadays it is more like "I charge you with my chaos warriors or you charge me. Either way I don't give a flying ****. Combat pls."
That and "Do you have a nasty unit? Can I see your spells? Oh, this is great, I'll just borrow them"

red_zebra_ve
18-10-2012, 16:28
Hate: Magic resistance is worthless!

TheDungen
18-10-2012, 16:45
maybee you should make a poll from the things that show up often. I dislike that magi is given so much power i also dislike steadfast. Making flank charges remove it might do the trick however. In both cases of steadfast and magic both infantry and magic needed a boots but they took it way to far.

oh yeah and bring back not marching near the enemy or at least make the roll harder.

Petey
18-10-2012, 19:48
maybee you should make a poll from the things that show up often. I dislike that magi is given so much power i also dislike steadfast. Making flank charges remove it might do the trick however. In both cases of steadfast and magic both infantry and magic needed a boots but they took it way to far.

oh yeah and bring back not marching near the enemy or at least make the roll harder.

That's a great Idea, I'll probably just tally up by hand the amount of times certain things come up and then post the results.

popisdead
18-10-2012, 20:02
I was wondering what are people's most hated rules from this edition.

The complaining.

Maoriboy007
18-10-2012, 21:38
Favourite: Step up, Steadfast , shooting/Fighting in multiple ranks, random charge distance, no more fear autobreak, redirecting charges
Most Hated: Autokill spells, Disruption not cancelling steadfast, striking in initiative , Unit type system, True Line of sight rules

Maoriboy007
18-10-2012, 21:45
Yeah but the ruleset was a bit more punishing towards slip ups.I don't know, I remember many games of charging into flanks of chaos knights and still losing, while chariots and clouds of chaos furies bounced arounds like pinballs chewing up entire units fairly recklessly, they seemed quite forgiving of all but the most careless of play back when I played against them.

The complaining.
To be fair there is also much pointing out the virtues of 8th, in the end highlighting the good and bad points is how we might work towards a better edition that everyone can enjoy more equally

zhu bajie
18-10-2012, 21:45
It seems that 8th Ed is the most popular edition

Well, that's largely down to selection bias - how many of the voters honestly have even read earlier editions, let alone play them?

Hate: random charges / no wrapping / restrictive army lists
Love: Scenarios and bonkers scenery that eats you

zak
18-10-2012, 21:46
Favourite - A fairly good rule set and balanced books. Worst - The College Magic Super spells. They could have toned down the spells and made the magic less game breaking. It really can spoil a good game.

Lordcypress
18-10-2012, 22:50
Most Hated:

Random charge distances and being able to pre-measure everything. Just took so much of the skill out of the game. Players with warmachines don't even have to think anymore. And dwarves getting the charge off on Cavalry is just wrong on so many levels.

Favorite Change:

Step up and attacking in Iniative order. Horde is a fun rule. But GW only created it to increase model sales. Thats a solid fact and but a good business move too.

Whats missing in this edition:

More magic items for our army books. Everyone has the same items now. Ogre Blade, Talisman of Preservation, Dragon Helm etc.......... Boring!!!!!

Havock
19-10-2012, 00:09
Also: hate/pet peeve: Units can use general's leadership for steadfast.

Phazael
19-10-2012, 00:12
Favorite: Magic and Infantry are worth their point value.

Hate: Units at half model count should give half their points.

Pretty much like everything else after playing with it more.

Sh4d0w
19-10-2012, 02:56
D6 Wounds is fine... on certain conditions
Cannons are too accurate, the way they are fired needs to change completely.
They should only hit rider or mount, NEVER EVER both, this has put almost every ridden monster into hibernation until another edition.

No one wants to take a goblin great shaman on aracharok because then the shaman and the spider takes a S10 D6 wounds, and not only once, many times in the same game because the cannons are just too damn accurate its retarded.

Yes, it was agreed by 99% of the people that hitting mount and rider is ridiculous. To be honest I have been playing dwarfs and dark elves for quite a while now (3 years), yes dwarf cannons are the worst offenders because of the rune that let's you re-roll artillery dice, but to be honest i've versed cannons from empire and ogres and they aren't as accurate as internet wisdom dictates.

A solution I've worked on and tried and tested that makes things fairer is after you've chosen the spot you roll a normal dice and on a odd number you subtract another artillery dice from your roll and on a even you add it on, for example, lets say a giant is 46" away from the dwarf cannon, he nominates the spot which happens to be 8" away from the giant, he rolls a normal die and scores a 3 (odd) so he rolls an artillery dice and scores a 6 then he rolls the second one and scores an 8 so the ball only flies 2" forward then he must roll another artillery dice for the bounce, i know it sounds very complicated but when you do it a few times it makes alot of sense and actually works!

DaemonReign
19-10-2012, 05:21
Yes Shadow when reading it I think it sounds a little bit complicated, and frankly I don't think the range-accuracy is an offending factor with cannons.
Sniping and ping-ponging, those are the two issues that should be done away with. That would suffice as far as I'm concerned.
Removing ping-ponging just means you randomize between rider and (monster-) mount, and of course it would be prudent to count vp's separately too in that case.
Ending the ugliness of sniping could be solved with some minor scatter. Just an inch or two maximum. Not enough to risk missing 'units' but enough of a scatter to simply not make it worthwhile trying to hit a specific 20/25mm base.

Kalandros
19-10-2012, 08:19
Yes its accuracy is an issue.

HE, DE bolt throwers, 100 pts a pop for a single (lets ignore the other shooting option) S6 D3 Rank-penetrating (at -1S per rank) that needs to roll to hit and usually accompanied with long range and cover penalties.
Then comes the cannon, almost guaranteed to hit whatever it aims at, especially if its an Ogre cannon or a Dwarf cannon.

Ok, I guess if cannons were nerfed to not hit every part of a model and have a minor scatter like you suggested then it should be bolt throwers and bolt thrower-like weapons that should get upgraded.
Or I guess everything ballistic-skill related needs an overhaul.

TK Colossi with Bow of the Desert hitting on a 5+ is just not reasonable when you've got a cannon thats tougher (T7) and much cheaper and will score home many more times than the colossi will, especially with the Str difference of the attack.
That colossi usually kills nothing with its bow and then stomps stuff in close combat.
Complete design flaw by completely incompetent designers. They just don't understand the game they're writing rules for.

oldWitheredCorpse
19-10-2012, 08:55
TK Colossi with Bow of the Desert hitting on a 5+ is just not reasonable when you've got a cannon thats tougher (T7) and much cheaper and will score home many more times than the colossi will, especially with the Str difference of the attack.
That colossi usually kills nothing with its bow and then stomps stuff in close combat.
Complete design flaw by completely incompetent designers. They just don't understand the game they're writing rules for.

The bow on the collossus costs 20 pts. You add a minor ranged threat that is almost impossible to hide from. In return you give up a little bit of close combat prowess. It would be awesome if it were affected by smiting, but they've been careful not to include anything awesome in the TK book.

Skarsnik, the Lord
19-10-2012, 10:01
Here's some of my thoughts...

Like:

* new combat rules. Steadfast, step up, make way, combat reforms
* you can measure everything anytime
* the new army composition rules
* new magic system
* making monstrous infantry better

Hate:

* disrupting doesn't get rid of steadfast
* rule book scenarios. They're all stupid and pointless, except the good ol' Battleline
* building rules. Defending a building is too easy, moving into building is too slow and there can be too many models in a building at the same time
* few auto-kill spells, like Purple Sun, Dwellers and Pit of Shades (these spells should cause only one wound IMO)
* victory point system, the 7th edition one was much better

Sotek
19-10-2012, 10:07
Favourite : Charging, steadfastness
Meh: hordes
Hate: magic, no disruption, broken magic, terrain being pointless, magic being OP, TLOS, more 'point and click'

Urgat
19-10-2012, 11:05
Also: hate/pet peeve: Units can use general's leadership for steadfast.

What would be the point of steadfast if it wasn't the case?
5 dark riders charge a unit of 60 night goblins, win the combat by 1. The goblins are in range of the general, but nope, they're steadfast, so they can't use his Ld. Now the goblins are rerollable... Ld5 by virtue of being more numerous. Woot?

Enigmatik1
19-10-2012, 13:42
Favourite: Step up, Steadfast , shooting/Fighting in multiple ranks, random charge distance, no more fear autobreak, redirecting charges
Most Hated: Autokill spells, Disruption not cancelling steadfast, striking in initiative , Unit type system, True Line of sight rules

Additional hate: Undead being largely unable to take advantage of the new Leadership rules and the collective overnerfing of Psychology. Fear/Autobreak was silly and broken and needed to be changed for the sake of the game but what we have now is borderline offensive. A nice, solid mid-ground would be nice.

Kalandros
19-10-2012, 15:10
The bow on the collossus costs 20 pts. You add a minor ranged threat that is almost impossible to hide from. In return you give up a little bit of close combat prowess. It would be awesome if it were affected by smiting, but they've been careful not to include anything awesome in the TK book.

Constructs should've been BS3~

T9nv3
19-10-2012, 16:12
Like
-How much fun I'm having in 8th
-Scaling back of power levels
-Infantry rules

Dislike
-Mysterious terrain (most players I know, just avoid the whole random terrain)
-I'm ok with cannons in general, but I REALLY hate how well they work on mounts. How on earth is a cannon supposed to hit my flying manticore?
I'd be willing to ride around an open field on an ostrich and let GW devs fire cannons at me to prove my point.

snyggejygge
19-10-2012, 17:38
Like:
I really like the step-up rule, so small change to the way fights are resolved, but a massive change in the right direction for balancing combats & no more I charge I win situations. They should've made this change way earlier.
Another thing I also like a lot is random charges, feels more accurate to the way it would work on a battlefield.

Dislike: I really hate 2 things in 8:th edition, the uber mega spells forcing everybody to take a level 4 wizard & the way cannons have become homing missilies.

If they added the 2 things I like to the rules of 6:th edition, with the awesome background books from even earlier editions (before Chaos & undead was split up) then it would be the most perfect game ever to suit my tastes!

Juicy21
19-10-2012, 23:09
Like: Random charges!, steadfast, hordes, and my army feels like an army and looks like an army on the table... withs wasnt the case with 7th.

dislike: they way lances work on the charge..how on earth do you strike before my lance hit you? then get hit by my lance in the return strike......
cannons: pingpong... nuf said
steadfast doesnt break with disturp.
uberspells ignore wardsaves

zlydon
19-10-2012, 23:19
Hate: Chargers don't get ASF. I mean what am I playing here 40k?

Boreas_NL
20-10-2012, 08:23
Hmmmmm, that's a tough one...

Like (quite a lot actually, so these are just the highlights):
No more partials...
Random charge range...
The Vanguard rule...
Random terrain (though user discretion is advised)...
The ease of playing a battle...

Love:
Hordes!!!

Dislike:
Magic can really mess up a totally good game (up to the point to where I think it's broken) and almost forces you to take at least a couple of Wizards...
The way that Monstrous Cavalry is nowhere near as cool as Monstrous Infantry...
The lack of race specific Magic Items...
Victory points system (I've seen it abused in horribles ways)...

Hate:
The 8th ed. Empire book!!!
The utter lack of flavour and individuality in the most recent army books (sure, it makes playing a game a lot easier, but it wouldn't hurt anybody if they invested a bit more thought into their new army books instead of just copying the old stuff, leaving out the cool bits and replacing it with meh)!!!

Edit:

Hate:
The whining about Cannon... What else can The Empire rely on to tackle all the big, broken, nasty beasties populating the Warhammer World?

tmarichards
20-10-2012, 09:02
As of this morning, I think T4 Demigryphs will be my most hated thing in the game.

Kayosiv
20-10-2012, 10:49
Hate:
The whining about Cannon... What else can The Empire rely on to tackle all the big, broken, nasty beasties populating the Warhammer World?

Crossbows, handguns, bows, magic spells, strength 4 knights with great weapons and lances, Demigryph knights, Griffons, Flagellants, Hellblaster Volley Guns, Grenade Launchers, Greatswords, fast cavalry and other horse troops with even more guns, mortars, Luminark laser beams, Runefang, Mace of Hellstrum, and good old fashioned characters with great weapons.

WizzyWarlock
20-10-2012, 10:56
Love: Random Charges
Hate: The changes to skirmish rules. The way every new book adds some random crap that unbalances things more and more, making old books worse and worse.

Urgat
20-10-2012, 11:02
mortars

You said the word no one should utter in Boreas' presence, and you may have unleashed something mankind might not be able to deal with, and thus it is revealed: it is because of YOU that 2012 is the end of the world!

Boreas_NL
20-10-2012, 11:57
You said the word no one should utter in Boreas' presence, and you may have unleashed something mankind might not be able to deal with, and thus it is revealed: it is because of YOU that 2012 is the end of the world!
Oh, you've got me there:D I was already foaming at the mouth (basically frothing with beserk rage), ready to inflict verbal violence on one so ignorant as to include the Mortar in The Empire's (effective) arsenal. I won't, really (not here, anyway:D)...

Kayosiv has a point, there is plenty which could hypothetically take on a big monster but not without being horribly mauled while doing so... Cannon are just so effective, nothing else can come even close. Just remember that the Empire 8th ed. book is utter crap (and should you forget it, you can count on me to remind you;))...

Edit: I hate the fact that GW managed to produce the most useless FAQ in the history of mankind. Of all the crap they put in there they only corrected the move value of a Warhorse... Really:confused: You couldn't think of anything else?

Urgat
20-10-2012, 12:21
The new general FAQ makes your demigriphs T4 my friend, this at least should please you ;)

J.P. Biff
20-10-2012, 23:04
Favorite: Steadfast

Hated: Disruption not taking away steadfast.

this this this. I've said it before (a long time ago) and I'll say it again. You and I are cut from the same stone Malorian.

Rotgut
21-10-2012, 14:36
Kayosiv has a point, there is plenty which could hypothetically take on a big monster but not without being horribly mauled while doing so... Cannon are just so effective, nothing else can come even close. Just remember that the Empire 8th ed. book is utter crap (and should you forget it, you can count on me to remind you;))...

I think the Empire book is very strong. The internal balance is a bit off, but it's a nightmare to fight against.

Kayosiv
21-10-2012, 23:14
Hey believe me, when I was glancing through things and looking at the mortar dismissively, I was VERY SURPRISED to see that under the hole was strength 6 and d3 wounds.

Lord Dan
21-10-2012, 23:57
Great
Random charges
Steadfast
Changes to casting (Lv. 4's are worth taking? What?)

Good
Everything is scenario-driven
12 power dice cap
Hordes

Bad
Disruption doesn't break steadfast
Difficult Terrain doesn't do anything
Magical Terrain for everyone!!!

Terrible
Victory Points
The Watchtower scenario
Insta-kill spells

Vipoid
22-10-2012, 11:21
Like:
- Large selection of core magic items
- Hordes
- The new Army Books
- Step Up

Dislikes:
- The high level of randomness. I know a lot of people feel the opposite way, but personally I'd prefer a little more certainty.
- Steadfast (or, more precisely, how difficult it is to break steadfast).
- The pathetic selection of army-specific items. For as useful as the core items are, it would be nice to have a more fluffy (and perhaps even useful) alternative to the Bland Sword of McBoringpants.
- Cannons being laser-guided and able to hit both rider and mount.
- The magic Phase:
- The fact that power and dispel dice are generated randomly
- The silly insta-kill spells that can basically end a game with a single casting.
- The fact that miscasts don't get more potent with the number of power dice used.
- The Mysterious Terrain rules:
- Wait, only 1/6 forests in this world are non-magical...?
- "Hmm, now that we're standing in it, I can deduce that this is, in fact, a River of Blood. No, of course we couldn't tell just from the fact that the 'water' is blood-red and viscous - obviously we could only tell for sure by standing in it. Now, who's thirsty?"

Lord Solar Plexus
22-10-2012, 12:16
Likes
Magic - great lores, yet capped by WoM
Steadfast
Disruption not cancelling Steadfast
Infantry, Cavalry, and Magic all being useful

Dislikes
Random movement
Skaven
some terrain issues
too few magic items


Hate: Chargers don't get ASF. I mean what am I playing here 40k?

Not sure what this 4k is, but why would or should chargers get ASF? There's nothing that really necessitates this.


[insert all Army Book entries]

In tin foil hat land.

logan054
22-10-2012, 12:27
Like:
- New Armybooks - They do seem far more balanced, it a shame however they don't have the flavor of 6th ed books
- Stepup - Good rule, its stops cavalry being the be all and end all of warhammer
- common Items - More often than not, it was the same item with a different name in each book
- Random powerdice - Its great that you can take a single magic user and still have a effective magic phase
- cap on armoursaves - It did get silly with people having a -2 armour save
- missions

Dislikes

- Terrain - I actually like the old rules, I don't mind having some funky forrests however I dislike how little effect terrain has one movement, the building rules are ok
- TLOS - Why can't I hide in a forrrest again? why can't I screen units from silly magic because my opponents wizard can see a toenail through some guys legs
- Magic lores - I would say its only certain lores with instant death spells which just makes some lores far better than others, I would have pretty balanced lores, if you have a eally good big spell, then the rest of the lore should be pretty crappy (unlike life and death)
- The dominance magic has on the game - I liked how they changed psykers to more of a support role in 40k, I feel it should be the same in warhamer, too often the game can be won or lost in the magic phase
- Random charges - I like the idea of it, I don't like how everything is 2D6 + M, the old dance about system was terrible, I also dislike how cavalry don't have a decent charge advantage over infantry, for me, I just a little more thought could have been put into it.
- BSB - I know what they tried to do, but the knock on effect was it made psycology rules have a very reduced effect on the game, rerolls for break tests is fine, maybe panic test, fear, terror, stupidty and frenzy was taking it to a extreme, it might have been better to have +D3 CR and reroll panic and break tests.
- Terror - I prefer the old rules with a bubble and not have it counting as a panic test
- Fear - It was far to powerful with auto breaking, they nerfed it to far, it woudl be nice if it made you hit on 6's (so far more useful to skeleton warriors and zombies) and something like -1 leadership to breaktests, maybe removing steadfast (but that might be to much), even making your ranks count as double might not be so bad?
- Ridden character rules - I like what they did with MC and I think it would be nice if that applied across the board, even for chariots, this might even make cannons seem less OP against them.
- Warmachines - I prefer how they do templates in 40k, 2D6 - your BS, thats how far you scatter, it just means the crew skill has a impact (which it should), I would love to see cannons first bounce actually scatter off course base on crew skill.
- Lances - The problem with these is the changes to striking in I order, really with the changes in the rules these should have been updated, a guy on a horse moving at a decent speed should be attacking first, so for me I think you should be able to make one of your attacks at +2 strength which counts as a impact hit, maybe even something like the bullcharge rule (with brets having a adapted version).
Victory points - The old system was better
- Irresistible force and miscasts - I don't think you really need both and I feel the auto casting on a double 6 is part of what leads to problems with mega spells deciding games.

On the Fence

- Steadfast - I see what they tried to do, I do like the extra power to infantry and I do really like seeing armies with massive blocks of infantry, It just feels like they might have took the changes to far, for me, rather that ignoring all CR, I might be better if it reduced the leadership roll by its rank bonus or something?
- Striking in I order - Its cool but I don't know if it was the best change, was it really needed? it did lead to changes in ASF which make certain things very op.

DaemonReign
22-10-2012, 15:42
Out of respect for people's indivudual opinions I've been refraining from commenting on this issue of Steadfast and Disruption.
I just Think it's wierd that whenever the idea of 'aggregate ranks' is discussed there seems to a lot of sentiment for it, and then when people state their personal likes/dislikes it seems to all revert back to 'disruption cancelling steadfast'.
Why is that?
I personally Think Steadfast could certainly be more dynamic (i.e. aggregate ranks) but simply letting disruption remove it - period - just appears as dangerously Heavy-handed somehow.

logan054
22-10-2012, 18:48
I agree that simply letting disruption remove it is far to heavy handy, I would like to see a little more power to flank charges, maybe causing panic tests could be a interesting one or lowering the leadership of the enemy unit based on its own ranks.

Petey
22-10-2012, 23:52
Counting is done

The favorite change is Combat Changes, with the majority naming Step Up (13 votes)

Most Unfavorite is Disruption not removing steadfast with 11 votes, though cannon had 10 and terrain 9.

It was interesting counting, as the things people liked were generally uniformally liked, though the hate category was all over the place (though still a lot of strong voting)

Ebon
23-10-2012, 11:43
Stuff I like:
- Horde rules, steadfast. Armies look like armies.
- Random charge distance. Gets rid of the annoying cat & mouse game.
- Loss of guess range (which I always sucked at).
- It mostly actually works.

Stuff I hate:
- Every army losing 3/4 of it's magic items in 8th army books. When I'm praying my LM don't get updated, something is wrong.
- Uselessness of magic resistance.
- Heavy cavalry were nerfed a little too hard.
- Skirmishers were nerfed far too hard (poor Woodies).
- Loss of march blocking.
- Nerf to fear and terror.
- Lances not hitting first on the charge (it's 8 feet long!)

Calathean
23-10-2012, 13:20
Likes
- INFANTRY....My army looks like an army!! Yipee!!
- Magic. Now I know loads of people have beef with Magic Spells that kill everything and end the world, but come on its not giant crazy spells is uncommon in the Warhammer World is it? Personally i think a crazy casting of Dwellers or Pit of Shades changing the ebb and flow of a game is what would happen. The power of Ward Saves can be overcome by particularly powerful magic.
- Older armies being lift in the dust. Poor Wood Elves you will see the light of day again...I promise even if I have to write a new army book myself.

Dislikes
- The new army books. They look cheap and commercial, marketed specifically for the dumbing down of the game. Let the mindless dullards play 40k, we play fantasy for back story and epic tactics! Further on from that is the removal of the countless magic items that personalised an army. Now it is very much the case of - "Oh look, who would have guessed the Ogre Tyrant, High Elf Prince and Tomb King are actually all the same guy just wearing a different hat."
- Now I also understand that everyone has complained about cannons, but it really is bl**dy annoying. My Star Dragon is taking a long slumber at the back of my cupboard, he is a bit scared of ping pong cannons so my Prince is struggling to convince him to come out and play.
- Victory Points. This makes me sad, why does killing 3/4 of unit not get me anything. The amount of times a fleeing unit has lost me the game or given me a draw is untrue. There needs to be simple % based Victory Points, also if a mount is killed, the enemy should get his VP. Blergh over

Vipoid
23-10-2012, 14:13
Likes
- Magic. Now I know loads of people have beef with Magic Spells that kill everything and end the world, but come on its not giant crazy spells is uncommon in the Warhammer World is it? Personally i think a crazy casting of Dwellers or Pit of Shades changing the ebb and flow of a game is what would happen. The power of Ward Saves can be overcome by particularly powerful magic.

Well, even if magic *can* do those things in the fluff, that doesn't necessarily mean that it should. Yes, perhaps it is reasonably realistic for a single spell to completely devastate an army. However, that's of little consolation when you're basically packing up your army after a single magic phase.




- The new army books. They look cheap and commercial, marketed specifically for the dumbing down of the game. Let the mindless dullards play 40k, we play fantasy for back story and epic tactics! Further on from that is the removal of the countless magic items that personalised an army. Now it is very much the case of - "Oh look, who would have guessed the Ogre Tyrant, High Elf Prince and Tomb King are actually all the same guy just wearing a different hat." VP.

I always find it rather dubious when people try to say that Fantasy is much more tactical than 40k. As someone who plays both, I'd say Fantasy is actually the less tactical one, simply because of how random 8th edition is. Compared to 5th edition 40k, you just have too little control of the outcomes to declare that it is more tactical than 40k. Alternatively, if you're comparing it to 6th edition 40k, then this also seems odd, since 6th edition is basically GW attempting to turn 40k into fantasy (pre-measuring, random charge distance, Generals, challenges, psychic powers turning into spell lores, etc.).

However, I'm entirely on your side with regard to your point about the massive reduction in magic items. I mean, it's not even like the authors needed much imagination, since the army books already had a plethora of magic items - all they had to do was maybe add a few new ones, remove some that don't really work, and tweak some point costs where necessary. Also, if GW really wanted to impose an unnecessary and arbitrary limit on items, why not do something make it 15 items - that way, each army book could have 2 Weapons, 2 Armours, 2 Talismans, 2 Arcane Items, 2 Enchanted Items, 2 Banners, and then 3 'miscellaneous' items, to distribute around those categories where necessary. It's still not ideal, but at least it would give armies a bit more choice.

Calathean
23-10-2012, 15:29
Well, even if magic *can* do those things in the fluff, that doesn't necessarily mean that it should. Yes, perhaps it is reasonably realistic for a single spell to completely devastate an army. However, that's of little consolation when you're basically packing up your army after a single magic phase.

As an Elf player the amount of times I have been Dwellered into the ground is untrue so I know exactly what you mean. However I think it makes a fairly static games like Fantasy quite cinematic. Also to be honest I have not played 40K since the new rules came out so I am little behind the times with the System, maybe I need to pick it up again, in hindsight I suppose Fantasy now is quite similar regardless of who you are playing. For me I mostly have to fight massive block infantry lead by a Level 4 Wizard with a BSB and general chaff troops to fill the points. Not many tactics involved in a meat grinder I guess.



I always find it rather dubious when people try to say that Fantasy is much more tactical than 40k. As someone who plays both, I'd say Fantasy is actually the less tactical one, simply because of how random 8th edition is. Compared to 5th edition 40k, you just have too little control of the outcomes to declare that it is more tactical than 40k. Alternatively, if you're comparing it to 6th edition 40k, then this also seems odd, since 6th edition is basically GW attempting to turn 40k into fantasy (pre-measuring, random charge distance, Generals, challenges, psychic powers turning into spell lores, etc.).



why not do something make it 15 items - that way, each army book could have 2 Weapons, 2 Armours, 2 Talismans, 2 Arcane Items, 2 Enchanted Items, 2 Banners, and then 3 'miscellaneous' items, to distribute around those categories where necessary. It's still not ideal, but at least it would give armies a bit more choice




This I completely agree with, I mean take the VC book, yes I like Skabscrath but it is a high pointed weapon which leaves you a little in the lurch with other items and well don't even get me started with the TK book =(

logan054
23-10-2012, 15:47
As an Elf player the amount of times I have been Dwellered into the ground is untrue so I know exactly what you mean. However I think it makes a fairly static games like Fantasy quite cinematic.

I am really starting to hate the word cinematic, because it really isn't the best way to describe being dwellwered to death, I don't know about you, when I'm playing a game I'm not trying to make a film, I'm trying to have a fun enjoyable game with a mate while drinking some beer, stupid spell.

Vipoid
23-10-2012, 16:27
This I completely agree with, I mean take the VC book, yes I like Skabscrath but it is a high pointed weapon which leaves you a little in the lurch with other items and well don't even get me started with the TK book =(

Skabscrath was in my mind when I wrote the above.

It's not a bad weapon per se, however, its excessive cost basically rules out it's use on Vampire Lords completely, and means that it will only see use on very specific Ghoul King builds. Essentially, it would have been nice to have a cheaper weapon as well, which could be used in more general builds (for example, Vlad's Blood Drinker would have been nice option to have access to).

DaemonReign
23-10-2012, 17:47
When I'm praying my LM don't get updated, something is wrong.

Haha.
Too true.
I'm trying to stay positive about future updates but it's hard, and a big reason is the decreased depth.

Calathean
23-10-2012, 18:48
I am really starting to hate the word cinematic, because it really isn't the best way to describe being dwellwered to death, I don't know about you, when I'm playing a game I'm not trying to make a film, I'm trying to have a fun enjoyable game with a mate while drinking some beer, stupid spell.

You may hate but at the end of the day for me, it brings me to the game. Personally I prefer to think of it like that. Otherwise I might as well play monopoly and stick to play war games on the PC

Lordsaradain
24-10-2012, 21:03
I dont like the general randomness (charge ranges etc) and the OP spells in the new lores and the power creep which isn't as bad as the 7th ed but still seems to be in there.

I like the way PD/DD are generated, the step up rule in combat which mean that you get to strike back after casualties, that infantry is viable, the new way of building armies (using percentages), the new scenarios.

misomiso
24-10-2012, 21:57
1) I think magic needs a revision. The killer spells are just too much, and I dont like the Lore of Death, but it should be possible to have a good and interesting magic phase that can influence the game without completely dominating it, and all armies should WANT to take both a high level mage and a General, and not just a wizard like a lot of them do (exceptions - lizardmen etc).

2) Update armies to balance the game. I understand how they have to release army books the way they do for economic reasons, but there's no reason they can't do some updates to try and balance the game. Tt wouldn't take a lot to Ban the Pendant of Khaleth, or redo the Hydra's stats. Other games companies can do it. GW seem to just want to engage with their customer base.

3) A 8.5 edition. A long with balance, the other thing GW could do is release an updated rulebook but not a complete revision, like D&D did. This could re word the rules people have problems with, and tweak other things following feedback from the community. It would be amazing if they did this as it would show that they actually cared about the product, and the rules would be better as they would have been playtested.

But they probably wouldn't do this.

Urgat
24-10-2012, 22:04
No they wouldn't sadly, this kind of things is something peoeple have wanted for as long as I remember, and if mid-edition updates have happened (like the rule change on the toughness value for moustrous cavalry we've just had), they're extremely rare, and never indepth, just a couple adjustements. That being said, we've had more for 8th ed than all the other editions together, I believe, so who knows, maybe they could do things differently this time. That that I believe they will.

Artinam
24-10-2012, 22:13
I love the magic system in principle I do think the spells are a bit too much. The spells more or less on the level as 7th edition in the current system seems more enjoyable.
Steadfast, step up and the randomness is what makes the game great,

What I don't like is true line of sight. Essentially makes you able to see anything everywhere anytime. It limits the game a bit.

Vipoid
24-10-2012, 23:08
1) I think magic needs a revision. The killer spells are just too much, and I dont like the Lore of Death, but it should be possible to have a good and interesting magic phase that can influence the game without completely dominating it, and all armies should WANT to take both a high level mage and a General, and not just a wizard like a lot of them do (exceptions - lizardmen etc).

I think one of the saddest things is that the army-unique lores are usually more interesting than those in the core rulebook, but tend to be vastly overshadowed in terms of power level - especially in the case of Death and Shadow.

FashaTheDog
24-10-2012, 23:20
I think one of the saddest things is that the army-unique lores are usually more interesting than those in the core rulebook, but tend to be vastly overshadowed in terms of power level - especially in the case of Death and Shadow.

The Chaos Warrior Lore of Tzeentch would like to strongly disagree and the Lores of Hashut, Nurgle, and the Skaven ones may also want to pipe up a little.

DaemonReign
25-10-2012, 05:28
The Chaos Warrior Lore of Tzeentch would like to strongly disagree and the Lores of Hashut, Nurgle, and the Skaven ones may also want to pipe up a little.

Let me begin by saying that I love the über-spells that it's gotten so trendy to hate as of late..
But none of the Lores you mention are from actual 8th Edition books, and it is certainly a flagrant fact that no army (thus far) have gotten army-specific lores that can rival the potential power of some of the BRB Lores.

8bitMummies
25-10-2012, 05:58
It is interesting to follow this thread and see how similar all of the responses are. My playgroup (myself included) have similar complaints/compliments.

Likes: Infantry-centric forces and rules, overall fun and feel of the game.
Dislikes: The loose ends; moot abilities (Magic resistance, Strider, etc.), war machine disparity, HUGE magic swings, TLOS and monsters that are too scared/expensive to participate. Cannons are a nightmare. Steadfast feels like a crutch, so...
My friend and I are playing around with the 8th edition rules to better suit our gaming needs. Here's what we're currently working with as far as Steadfast is concerned:
- Successful flank charges subtract -1 from unmodified Ld when taking a steadfast break test. Successful rear charges subtract -2. Additionally, on the turn of the charge this modifier extends to all Ld based tests caused by the charging unit (including Fear tests!) Heavy Cavalry and Monstrous Cavalry subtract an additional -1 per rank bonus of the unit, Heavy Cavalry being defined as any cavalry troop type unit that does not have the vanguard or scout special rules. Large Targets subtract an additional -1, and Colossal Beasts an additional -2.
So far it changes things enough to make it interesting. What do you guys and gals think?
For the magic phase...
- A roll of a double 1 will always take precedence over a double 6.
- Magic resistance is always usable vs any spell. Against hexes/indirect damage spells, MR provides dispel dice equal to its numerical amount usable only by the targeted unit. For example, if you had three dice in your dispel pool and your Dwarf Warriors with MR 2 were targeted by Dwellers Below, you could roll 2 extra dice when attempting to dispel it.

Really my dream would be to incorporate more of the awesomeness of 3rd into 8th. Wrapping around? Yes, please. Bring on the Free Hack!

Urgat
25-10-2012, 08:52
- Magic resistance is always usable vs any spell. Against hexes/indirect damage spells, MR provides dispel dice equal to its numerical amount usable only by the targeted unit. For example, if you had three dice in your dispel pool and your Dwarf Warriors with MR 2 were targeted by Dwellers Below, you could roll 2 extra dice when attempting to dispel it.

Got simpler: hex is cast on your unit, you roll your MR, if successful, hex has no effect? Why need to complicate the mumbojumbo? Magic resistance doesn't make you dispell magic, it makes you resist magic.

Wrapping around? Yes, please.

Noes :( I'd rather the unit that won the previous round of combat can fight on one more rank, that wouldn't force me to move my minis, and it'll achieve more or less the same thing. I don't think lapping around cancelled bonus ranks right? It just gave a +1 for flanking or something iirc. Units that win combats to a point where steadfast becomes irrelevent tend to not really need that kind of cheap bonus anyway... Anyway, lapping around would bring nothing at all and it looked quite bleh to boot, the three silly guys on each flank...

Far2Casual
25-10-2012, 09:26
The guys regretting ASF on charge need to explain me slowly how on earth they can justify that someone running at me on foot can gain any form on initiative on me if I'm waiting for him. We aren't talking about a cavalry charge or anything, a gnoblar on foot charging an High Elf with a Spear had ASF, wtf was that ?

I never understood why the charge in Warhammer does not make strike HARDER instead of QUICKER. With the impulse it's obvious that the first blow will be more powerful. But quicker ? How/why ?

Then any kind of spear/lances needs their own rule regarding charges. Lances/Spears on cavalry should give you ASF on charge indeed, and Spears on foot should give you ASF when charged, that would be more logical.

So to me, the whole design around weapons and charges is wrong :

Everybody charging, with any kind of weapon, should get a one-time S bonus (+1).
Lances/Spears on cavalry should get an I/ASF bonus on charge. Lances would further enhance the one-time S bonus (up to +2).
Spears on foot should get an I/ASF bonus when receiving a charge.

Vipoid
25-10-2012, 10:33
The Chaos Warrior Lore of Tzeentch would like to strongly disagree and the Lores of Hashut, Nurgle, and the Skaven ones may also want to pipe up a little.

Sorry, I should have said the 8th Edition Army Book Lores.

Apologies for any misunderstandings.



Then any kind of spear/lances needs their own rule regarding charges. Lances/Spears on cavalry should give you ASF on charge indeed, and Spears on foot should give you ASF when charged, that would be more logical.

This is something of an aside, but I always thought it a bit odd that spears had no effect on impact hits. It seems like the charging unit should also take damage before combat, since it will inevitably run into the spears, before reaching the men.

logan054
25-10-2012, 11:30
The Chaos Warrior Lore of Tzeentch would like to strongly disagree

No it wouldn't, its a ok lore, its not on the same power level as death and shadow, its cool, butit isn't amazing


Skaven ones may also want to pipe up a little.

The skaven lore is broken as hell, simply because of one spell which should be changed, 4D6 models dead with no roll is stupid.

TH

DaemonReign
25-10-2012, 15:08
It is interesting to follow this thread and see how similar all of the responses are.

I guess it's just in my nature to navigate outside of any mainstreams, but whenever opinions start showing this kind of conformity I actually become highly suspicious of the actual psychological processes that gives rise to such 'consensus'.
That being said, I like your group's way of dealing with rules you feel arn't good enough - although I'd do things differently in detail.

- For Steadfast I would Count aggregate ranks (Large Targets would Count has having 1 rank 'in themselves') as I Think this is more elegant and in line with the rest of the 8th Ed rules, compared to juggling a set of ld penalties as you've decided to do in your Group. Your idea is not bad though(!), it's definately within the margins of 'reason' I'd say (unlike Disruption breaking Steadfast end of story).
- I'm not getting on the train of complaint about the Magic Phase. Double 1 miscasts was an abomination, I'm glad we're rid of that (although it's not clear from you post whether you mean actual Miscast or merely that the spell fails or can't be Irrestable if you roll (for example) 6-6-1-1.
- On Magic Resistance I agree with Urgat. They could have made it a single unit-by-unit wardsave-type-thing but that would have moved MR from being a sleepy kid in the backseat to a raving lunatic on the roof, so I've got quite a bit of sympathy for the way things are too..
[Not every ability must be 'absolutely useable' - I Think abilities that comes into play more rarely adds depth to the game..]
- Wrapping around is.. too busy. Leave the integrity of my movement-tray alone! ;)



So to me, the whole design around weapons and charges is wrong :

Everybody charging, with any kind of weapon, should get a one-time S bonus (+1).
Lances/Spears on cavalry should get an I/ASF bonus on charge. Lances would further enhance the one-time S bonus (up to +2).
Spears on foot should get an I/ASF bonus when receiving a charge.

I agree that striking in I-order is much better compared to 7th Edition. Virtually Everything in the combat phase is better in 8th compared 7th - the only bit I miss even a Little bit is the concept of unit-strength.
Also in basic agreement on your listed suggestions for how to make different weapon-types more dynamic.
There are many Little things like that which would be quite fluffy:
Spears - Use the Movement-value of the enemy as Strength when receiving a Charge.
Barding - Warbeasts with this upgrade are immune to Stomp.
I'm sure there are other details like this - and indeed the ones you list arn't crazy either. :)

Fear Ghoul
25-10-2012, 19:16
I've never understood most of the complaints about magical terrain. The rulebook makes it quite clear that they are not mandatory. They can be fun if you fancy a silly game every once in a while.

Vipoid
25-10-2012, 19:18
I've never understood most of the complaints about magical terrain. The rulebook makes it quite clear that they are not mandatory. They can be fun if you fancy a silly game every once in a while.

Well, I'd guess that some people might like rules for normal terrain - for when they don't want silly games. :p

The Low King
26-10-2012, 00:58
Well, I'd guess that some people might like rules for normal terrain - for when they don't want silly games. :p

They do have rules.....

Vipoid
26-10-2012, 10:09
They do have rules.....

They have a few rules, but non-magical terrain really does very little.

Petey
26-10-2012, 21:30
A note to those people complaining about the armybooks spell lores being weaker than the main 8; This may be that GW got the point of our complaints and purposefully brought down the power level when we weren't happy with it. We may see the 8 lores toned down to what the army books are, power wise, in 9th ed.

Vipoid
28-10-2012, 11:34
A note to those people complaining about the armybooks spell lores being weaker than the main 8; This may be that GW got the point of our complaints and purposefully brought down the power level when we weren't happy with it. We may see the 8 lores toned down to what the army books are, power wise, in 9th ed.

That's an interesting point.

However, aside from being of little help while we're playing 8th edition, it's hardly a definite - it could just as easily be a case of different authors having different ideas about how powerful spells should be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main rulebook was written primarily by Ward, but he hasn't written any of the 8th edition army book. So, if he's the main author of the 9th edition rulebook, we could see the spells remaining the same as they are, simply because he believes that they should be very strong.

I'm not saying that this *will* happen, mind, just that it's another possibility.

Finnigan2004
28-10-2012, 17:16
The cinematic rules and the size of the armies. Unfortunately, my least favorite thing is that the rules and size of armies have driven everyone else around here away.

FashaTheDog
28-10-2012, 17:25
Games Workshop could actually release an alternate magic lore book where they went back and redid the eight lores to tone them down and made a few tweaks, such as more useful magic resistance as something of a counterpoint to Storm of Magic, a Becalm of Magic if you will. The book could have the stated purpose of offering Warhammer players a lighter magic phase with a few new scenarios, some neat terrain like magic heat sinks (obvious dressed up in a fancy name), and some other content all for the price of an army book then tie it to an already planned terrain release. They make some more money off the book sales, the people who dislike how the magic phase turns the game in to something of a Warhammer Craps (I personally like playing craps every now and then) get what they want and massive overhaul of the main rules is unnecessary as you can just call it an expansion and be done with it.

Wesser
28-10-2012, 22:36
Victory Points

Everything about this is ****ed up

100 VP determines who wins? ********. Old chart was soooo much better

No half VP for half units/wounded chars? Bullcrap. Means hundreds of points can be loaded into one or two models thus rewarding cagey play

Fleeing units not rewarding VP? I've lost games where my opponent didnt have a single unit not dead or fleeing. Or when one lousy model worth 500 VP is standing at the edge of the table? How are you worth anything if you are lost and scared in the middle of a battlefield?

They rly dropped the ball on that ****

NightHawk45
29-10-2012, 14:51
Favorite: Magic (but that is pretty much my favorite thing with any game)
Recent Army Books - they seem to work well and be decently balanced
Skirmishers -even though the HE ones aren't great, they still roll my opponents warmachine backfield)
Least Favorite: Cannons
No new rulebook for Bretonnia
Very few faq updates.
Victory points as Wesser noted. I think that it should scale with the point size.

DaemonReign
29-10-2012, 22:51
They have a few rules, but non-magical terrain really does very little.
156448
From a friendly skirmish last night.
Notice how that forest blocks line of sight just fine.
Notice how that hill is high enough so that those Mortars actually lost sight of my units as I got too Close.
This terrain is very typical and generated with the standard BRB generator.
This Picture really encompasses what I love about 8th Ed.
Armies that look like armies, terrain rules that promote inviting scenery.
OnG won by the way, but it was a very rocky road! :D

Vipoid
29-10-2012, 23:04
156448
Notice how that forest blocks line of sight just fine.
This terrain is very typical and generated with the standard BRB generator.


I have to say, I have never seen a forest like that before - usually they have far too few trees to block LoS, so I'm not sure I'd call that standard. :p

DaemonReign
29-10-2012, 23:36
Sure you have. Whenever you step outside into an actual forest! :)
Sort of my Point: If the terrain-generator in the BRB said "Mysterious Couple of Trees" I'd understand the complaining. ;)
I hope I've inspired you to get some more trees then - because damn people those trees are like the least expensive bits on that entire game-board..

Ratarsed
29-10-2012, 23:51
The trouble I have with those sort of woods is the impracticality of moving units through them. They become in effect no go areas because its just too much trouble to put units in them.

@Vipoid. If you don't like the current terrain rules what would you put in their place?

DaemonReign
30-10-2012, 00:09
The trouble I have with those sort of woods is the impracticality of moving units through them. They become in effect no go areas because its just too much trouble to put units in them.

We don't experience such troubles.
Measure where you're going, pick up the handfull of trees necessary to Place the unit, drop the unit and you're done.

Granted, it takes a few extra seconds compared to moving over open ground.. but in all honesty:
We spend ridiculous amount of time and Money on our Little toy-soldier armies, and then suddenly when we're at the gaming table it's all about getting it over with quickly.. (!?)

Do you understand the inconsistency I see here?
- Because yeah I've got buddies who'll both complain about my whacky (realistic) Forests and harp about how the 'standard' Couple of Trees have no impact at the same time.

I understand that time is an issue, but honestly a patch of trees like in the above Picture doesn't prolong the play-time in any noticable way. :)

Urgat
30-10-2012, 00:12
The trouble I have with those sort of woods is the impracticality of moving units through them. They become in effect no go areas because its just too much trouble to put units in them.
People always say that, but compared to removing casulaties, that's really nothing.

Vipoid
30-10-2012, 00:31
The trouble I have with those sort of woods is the impracticality of moving units through them. They become in effect no go areas because its just too much trouble to put units in them.

That was my thought when I saw that wood.



@Vipoid. If you don't like the current terrain rules what would you put in their place?

I'm not sure exactly. With regard to standard terrain, maybe some sort of movement penalty for going through them. Also, I'd probably say that forests and the like completely block LoS, rather than either using TLoS on forests that apparently contain 3 trees, or using ~100 trees, and being forced to move half the forest if you want to move a unit into it. :p

With regard to magical terrain, I'd make it much more uncommon (5+ or 6+), and roll for each piece at the beginning of the game, rather than when you first move into each piece.

But that's just my thoughts.

DaemonReign
30-10-2012, 01:00
I'd actually make the Magical Terrain slightly less 'common' too, sort of like you propose.
As for the Forests.. I've done what I can to give you some perspective on that.. It's not nearly as cumbersome as your first impressions are evidently telling you.
And besides - take that logic to the end-station and playing Warhammer at all makes no sense what-so-ever.
There are computer-games for each and everyone that don't feel like 'making an effort', after all.

Gaargod
30-10-2012, 04:37
Love:
> Stepping Up
> Army composition changes (absolutely brilliant)
> The actual idea of Steadfast...
> No longer using wizard levels for magic...
> Initiative for combat...

Neutral:
> ... but not the totally random factor of magic generation. I think I'd have preferred a 4D3 generation system.
> TLoS. I like some of it, but some abstraction is necessary.
> ... but Initiative should have been affected by charging/weapon choice or something. Makes no sense that lances go after hand weapons!
> Terrain no longer being tarpits is nice, but they've gone slightly far the other way IMHO.
> Charges. Although I abused the hell out of it, angled charges with precision distances were a bit silly, but random charges are... well... too random (would have liked M x2 + D6, maybe? I'm not sure, that might be a bit fast, but 2D6 is too random for my liking). Plus, charging no longer gives enough of a bonus.
> Miscasts. They kinda got more dangerous, but unfortunately it's usually more dangerous to your magic phase or the models around them. Would have preferred a more personal "I'm screwed" system with some 'meh' results.

Very much Hate:
>... the practical effect of Steadfast. Should use Aggregate ranks, disruption should have some effect (seriously, it's a minimum of 2 ranks after casualties - it's not as easy as you think), general's LD should not be usable for Steadfast (in answer to someone's point a while back - you can use either Steadfast or the general's LD, whichever is higher. If you happen to have a character, which could be the general, in that unit then you can use that LD). This would also fix combat reforms with steadfast.
> Uberspells. Just no. If they all allowed LoS, I'd find them less offensive (oh, and 13th needs to be straight up banned).
> Hold Your Ground affecting everything. No.
> Cannons (see below).
> Magic in general is too powerful for my tastes. If you changed to double 1s = Miscast (and cancel out IF - although I wouldn't mind the spell being cast normally if minimum values were met), it'd be much better. I'd also like failure in casting to still allow you to cast, but this does turn Lv4s into even better than normal.
> Failed Charges. Pahahahaha - they make literally no difference. At the very, very least you should move your Mv, or perhaps both dice rolled added together - there needs to be some fricking penalty for failing charges!
> VPs. Nuff said.



Cannons versus monsters on largish bases (i.e. >2" long):
Aim for a spot just under 10" from the back of their base. You now have a 2/3 chance of hitting:
1/6 misfire = 6/36
1/6 of two x 1/2 of misfire+two+four = 3/36
1/6 of four x 1/3 of misfire+two = 2/36
1/6 of six x 1/6 of misfire = 1/36

Total gives you 12/36 = 1/3 chance of missing. And remember, this number is totally indifferent to BS value, range, objects passed through, etc. By comparison a Bolt Thrower with a BS of, say, 3, has a flat 1/2 chance of hitting at close range, 1/3 at long range, possibly worse with cover, etc.

Now admittedly they don't have the same accuracy versus things with smaller bases (i.e. <2" long), but it's still really fricking high. If you just removed the ping-pong and then added a scatter of D6-BS, (like the 40k system, but slightly less random) you'd instantly make them a hell of a lot less laser-guided whilst actually making BS a factor (you could potentially improve this further by making the -BS subject to normal BS penalties for shooting at long range, etc).

Urgat
30-10-2012, 08:03
>... the practical effect of Steadfast. Should use Aggregate ranks, disruption should have some effect (seriously, it's a minimum of 2 ranks after casualties - it's not as easy as you think), general's LD should not be usable for Steadfast (in answer to someone's point a while back - you can use either Steadfast or the general's LD, whichever is higher. If you happen to have a character, which could be the general, in that unit then you can use that LD). This would also fix combat reforms with steadfast.

That was me, and using either makes steadfast useless, at least for the units that are supposed to use it (cheap chaff, usually with low Ld). Steadfast is there to allow such troops to suck up casualties. They usually take a lot. Steadfast kicks in whenever you lose combat. These units lose combat by a lot. Whether you use just the general's Ld (so snake eyes) or unmodified Ld (so test on a 5, a 6), odds are high that the unit will break. So people will not take big units anymore because they'll be a huge liability, so we'll be back to MSU and skirmishhammer.
I'm so tired of explaining that in every topic.

Vipoid
30-10-2012, 11:34
As for the Forests.. I've done what I can to give you some perspective on that.. It's not nearly as cumbersome as your first impressions are evidently telling you.

Really?

You might well be right - it's just that I get a different impression from the picture you provided. I might well be wrong, but it looks like you'd have to demolish the forest before you could move anything into it. :p

I don't suppose you could upload images of a close-up of the forest, and then a second pic of the forest with a unit in it, could you? I'd just be interested to see what you need to move to get a unit into it.



And besides - take that logic to the end-station and playing Warhammer at all makes no sense what-so-ever.


Yes, but that's just Reductio ad absurdum.

Urgat
30-10-2012, 11:50
Really?

You might well be right - it's just that I get a different impression from the picture you provided. I might well be wrong, but it looks like you'd have to demolish the forest before you could move anything into it. :p

I don't suppose you could upload images of a close-up of the forest, and then a second pic of the forest with a unit in it, could you? I'd just be interested to see what you need to move to get a unit into it.

All the trees that are in the way, obviously, no? As I said before, even if you need to push a dozen trees, that's less than the number of goblins I have to remove after a round of combat against chaos warriors... (and I certainly take more care removing my gobs than I do moving trees around).

DaemonReign
30-10-2012, 14:58
Believe it or not I actually uploaded 2 more pics from the same game but Photobucket has some funky beta-version going and none of the editing functions work for me at the moment.
Let's see what I can find from earlier games...
156466
A unit of Fiends advancing over a forest-covered hill.
156467
The other end of that same hill, actually, a Black Guard unit and a Hydra trying to get the jump on some FleshHounds and a KoS.
That's an Elven Waystone by the corner of the BG-unit, btw.
156468
Here the Forest is bigger (these are 8-10k games on 14' tables).
156469
Some Orcs moving in forest..

I don't know what these pics are supposed to tell you really, save for the fact that we do use WYSIWYG/realistic terrain in our Group and that's not something I bring up just to be all 'special' or whatever..
Like Urgat says - things take time (they really, really do!) but it's not hills being of a proper size or Forests containing more than four trees that steals all that time.. Those Little details are just the icing on the cake that makes the terrain matter (and the gaming-table look better/become more fun to navigate!)

Perhaps my comment about computer games is reductio ad absurdum, I Think it's a good way of evaluating the fundamental Health of a maxim though. ;)
And in that case: We're not really talking about "~100 trees" nor "being forced to move half the forest if you want to move a unit into it" ...

Just give it a try. Or don't. haha Just wanted to give a voice to my perspective on this bit! Cheers!

Blinder
30-10-2012, 18:19
Even if you did have to move half the forest I'd imagine you could just mount bunches of trees together and move a few clumps, much the way a lot of folks already make it easy to move individual trees in and out of position. 3 or 4 trees, 3 or 4 chunks... should be about the same effort to move with a ton more "can't see through here." Any of the "lots of trees" folks tried anything like that?

Haravikk
30-10-2012, 19:03
Hmm, it's hard to pick a single favourite, but probably Steadfast; it has a huge impact on 8th edition's style of play, and made Infantry viable again. It could do with some minor tweaks to balance some of the dirt cheap hordes, but it's simple and works well. I also really liked the change to dangerous terrain, as it means that you can field a lot more terrain without it slowing the game to a crawl.

What I dislike the least is magic in 8th; the core lores have spells that are too powerful without good reason, specifically the fact that they ignore all saves, including Magic Resistance (which is rubbish this edition in general), and it's overall too random. Most of the time it's fun, but it has a high capacity to spoil a game by either being too unreliable, or too successful; I'd much rather have a less random, more predictable, and more augment/hex oriented magic phase.

Sexiest_hero
30-10-2012, 19:19
I love how 8th made armies look more like armies, and i hate how people trashed it before giving it a fair try.

Vipoid
30-10-2012, 19:37
Believe it or not I actually uploaded 2 more pics from the same game but Photobucket has some funky beta-version going and none of the editing functions work for me at the moment.
Let's see what I can find from earlier games...
156466
A unit of Fiends advancing over a forest-covered hill.
156467
The other end of that same hill, actually, a Black Guard unit and a Hydra trying to get the jump on some FleshHounds and a KoS.
That's an Elven Waystone by the corner of the BG-unit, btw.
156468
Here the Forest is bigger (these are 8-10k games on 14' tables).
156469
Some Orcs moving in forest..

I don't know what these pics are supposed to tell you really, save for the fact that we do use WYSIWYG/realistic terrain in our Group and that's not something I bring up just to be all 'special' or whatever..
Like Urgat says - things take time (they really, really do!) but it's not hills being of a proper size or Forests containing more than four trees that steals all that time.. Those Little details are just the icing on the cake that makes the terrain matter (and the gaming-table look better/become more fun to navigate!)

Perhaps my comment about computer games is reductio ad absurdum, I Think it's a good way of evaluating the fundamental Health of a maxim though. ;)
And in that case: We're not really talking about "~100 trees" nor "being forced to move half the forest if you want to move a unit into it" ...

Just give it a try. Or don't. haha Just wanted to give a voice to my perspective on this bit! Cheers!

Thanks for uploading those pics. :)

I'll admit, the forest there certainly looks a lot more manageable than it did in the first picture.

If my group gets more trees, I'll suggest giving that sort of dense forest a go. It defiantly looks good in any case.

Out of interest, are the trees on individual bases, or are some clumped together on a larger base?

Maoriboy007
30-10-2012, 19:40
In regards to the forest I can imagine someone will be able to see 1/100th of a fraction of some model just so he can shoot it, hell you can shoot at models obscured behind blocks of models if you can see even the tinies bit between a forest of legs.

DaemonReign
30-10-2012, 20:06
Out of interest, are the trees on individual bases, or are some clumped together on a larger base?

The vast majority of them are on individual bases. They are properly weighted down though so you can almost throw them in a loop at the table and they'll land standing up.
I made one single larger base of trees (actually visible in the first pic I posted at the edge of that forest) but after having weighed the pro's and con's of this I've found individual trees to be better..
Single-model trees are more flexible, allows you to create a unique Environment in every game, and are oftentime easier to move units around compared to big slabs of terrain.

Haravikk
30-10-2012, 21:38
If my group gets more trees, I'll suggest giving that sort of dense forest a go. It defiantly looks good in any case.
I've had a few games with properly dense forest with various clearings; for one thing it's a great way to give Wood Elves a bit of a helping hand in terms of balance, and it can be good fun. Remember as well that if you have any really dense forests you can tweak the rules slightly, for example counting them as Impassible for units other than Skirmishers.
A lot of people that complain about the 8th edition terrain rules forget just how easy it is to tweak them :)

Gaargod
31-10-2012, 16:34
That was me, and using either makes steadfast useless, at least for the units that are supposed to use it (cheap chaff, usually with low Ld). Steadfast is there to allow such troops to suck up casualties. They usually take a lot. Steadfast kicks in whenever you lose combat. These units lose combat by a lot. Whether you use just the general's Ld (so snake eyes) or unmodified Ld (so test on a 5, a 6), odds are high that the unit will break. So people will not take big units anymore because they'll be a huge liability, so we'll be back to MSU and skirmishhammer.
I'm so tired of explaining that in every topic.


No, it makes the LD stat useless.

Currently, within the general's 12", the leadership of units' is basically a non-existent stat. Excepting a very few specific examples (Blade of Realities, Spirit Leech, Death Mask TK), everyone can just use the general's LD combined with Steadfast combined with BSB for basically unbreakable units. This is a bad thing. If you don't let the general's LD work, then LD becomes an important stat again for battle-line units. Sure, if you beat the crap out of a LD5 unit then have good odds of running.

And what's wrong with that? Just because there's a lot of them and a guy is shouting at them from some distance means they're as brave as elite troops? No way. If you want that big unit of crappy troops to stay around, there's other ways to do it - you could stick a character in there to give them better LD and with a BSB around they'll actually stay around a fair bit of the time, even at LD5-7.

It will absolutely not devolve into skirmishhammer. Why would it? If you did that, you wouldn't be able to support those units with characters, nor would your magic buffs work as efficiently. But it would reduce the insistence of always needing to be within the general's range. It wouldn't make him useless - if they only lost combat by a little bit or had to take a psychology test, the general's LD is invaluable.


Case in point, Skaven. Skaven units are very cheap and one of the reasons for this is they have a very low LD (Slaves at Ld2, for example). Now, Strength in Numbers boosts that to reasonable levels. General's LD on top of that makes them very brave, even! But if you remove Steadfast stacking on top of those 2, you would instantly get rid of Ld10 Slave blocks. You can either have Ld5 steadfast or Ld10 normally, not both.


The reason you're "tired of explaining it", is because you're straight up wrong, as I have equally argued whenever I have seen it come up.

Ghremdal
31-10-2012, 17:03
So kill the general, or the BSB, or both if you have problems dealing with steadfast blocks. I mean what would the point be of a general if he can't pass his LD stat to other units. The slaves or goblins or whatever might not be very brave, but they fear the general more if they break then the pounding they are taking in combat.

What you are suggesting would bring us right back to cav (elite) heavy, MSU lists. LD 5, even with a reroll is a joke if you need to hold.

You can also redirect the general, or the unit you are fighting, so its outside inspiring presence range, thus getting a better chance to break. But all of that requires tactics instead of just slamming your elite troop into a horde and breaking them.

P.S. Skaven slaves are a 7th ed relic that will most likely be fixed when the new book comes out, but even at their current state they can be dealt with.

Urgat
31-10-2012, 17:18
Sure, if you beat the crap out of a LD5 unit then have good odds of running.

Which is always what will happen since such units always have low Ld and always lose combat by a lot, hence why it would make big units useless again (as their point is to hold even when beaten because they will hardly ever win a combat anyway) and so I'll ignore the rest of your post but for:


No, it makes the LD stat useless.
I'll skip the rest and just comment on that: no it doesn't. For starters, even if steadfast is on, it's not full-proof. You can fail it, even with a reroll, I've done it, several times (a warboss Ld isn't exactly stellar). Then you can remove it by killing troops. My WoC pal routinely removes steadfast from huge blocks of gobs, and then Ld kicks in. You can also remove the general's Ld by killing the general.
But you want to nerf the rule instead. Not that I care in fact, steadfast's here to stay for a loooong, looong while. You've enjoyed your editions slaughtering chaff in all impunity, well, now's our turn. I have yet to find that steadfast is so broken that my opponents can't win agaisnt me anymore anyway, so there's not even a reason to complain about it. When GW deal with the units that abuse it (slaves, namely, the one you had to choose as an example, of course, not state troops, not MaA, not goblins, no, Skaven slaves. The single unit where steadfast is indeed a problem. Certainly a convenient example. Not nearly the same weight with any other example, though), all will be well for me.

edit: sorry, I sound a bit vindictive there but you weren't exactly friendly either so I'll call it even.

edit 2: oh, if steadfast goes for 9th ed, I vote for no caps to rank bonuses instead. I'd love to see how people would like that. Heck, I might even win a combat from times to times and not just stand there taking a beating (which is what I do, steadfast or not).

Gaargod
31-10-2012, 21:20
Which is always what will happen since such units always have low Ld and always lose combat by a lot, hence why it would make big units useless again (as their point is to hold even when beaten because they will hardly ever win a combat anyway) and so I'll ignore the rest of your post but for:


I'll skip the rest and just comment on that: no it doesn't. For starters, even if steadfast is on, it's not full-proof. You can fail it, even with a reroll, I've done it, several times (a warboss Ld isn't exactly stellar). Then you can remove it by killing troops. My WoC pal routinely removes steadfast from huge blocks of gobs, and then Ld kicks in. You can also remove the general's Ld by killing the general.
But you want to nerf the rule instead. Not that I care in fact, steadfast's here to stay for a loooong, looong while. You've enjoyed your editions slaughtering chaff in all impunity, well, now's our turn. I have yet to find that steadfast is so broken that my opponents can't win agaisnt me anymore anyway, so there's not even a reason to complain about it. When GW deal with the units that abuse it (slaves, namely, the one you had to choose as an example, of course, not state troops, not MaA, not goblins, no, Skaven slaves. The single unit where steadfast is indeed a problem. Certainly a convenient example. Not nearly the same weight with any other example, though), all will be well for me.

edit: sorry, I sound a bit vindictive there but you weren't exactly friendly either so I'll call it even.

edit 2: oh, if steadfast goes for 9th ed, I vote for no caps to rank bonuses instead. I'd love to see how people would like that. Heck, I might even win a combat from times to times and not just stand there taking a beating (which is what I do, steadfast or not).


I actually wouldn't mind a higher cap to rank bonus (no cap would be plain stupid - both in terms of games mechanic, where a unit could be being mercilessly slaughtered and still be 'winning' combat, and in terms of the logical problem that after a certain point those models are literally just standing there, doing nothing, yet 'add' to the combat resolution). I don't mind them rewarding big units at all - but I genuinely don't understand how people are arguing this mechanic should work this way. Consider the stubborn rule in 6th ed - no one had a problem with it being unaffected by the general, because you had to pay through the nose for stubborn! In the same way, why do people not object to units totally have their LD stat replaced by the general.

What I object to is units routinely losing combats and still holding easily because of the general. Yes, you could just kill the general or BSB but
a) not everyone has a decent, cost effective way of doing that (for example, good luck killing a general who's in a large bunker behind the main lines). Too many battlelines end up in horrendous grinds whereas genuine realistic combat does not have that! (For example, see Alexander's Battle of Issus, where a much smaller force of cavalry punched through a very weak but enormous block of infantry). (Yes, I am aware of the irony in pointing out that in this particular battle, it was basically 'kill the kill to king'. My point is that even in these scenarios, battles are far more fluid than ours).
b) breaking steadfast units without resorting to enormous blocks yourself is impractical. Ld9 with a reroll is down to about 1/36, give or take - sure, it might happen, but it is totally unreliable to expect it to happen. LD10 rerollable is all the way to like 1/144 ish and into the realms of ridiculous luck for that to affect the battle in a big way. Especially with it currently ignoring disruption. If that wasn't the case, you might have an argument, but as it is...
c) MSU is one thing, but why can a medium sized block, paying the points for their increased stats, beat a cheap large unit in combat? The large unit has other bonuses, such as the ability to soak up wounds and a higher static combat resolution, why do they need to have free LD too?
d) there's still no good logical reason for it! You cannot seriously simply argue "They're more scared/impressed/better led by the general to such an extent that they ignore what happens in front of them". I cannot imagine that such is their confidence in their numbers and their general that they are willing to walk into a death machine in front of them. By all means, give them serious combat resolutions to reflect their confidence - I dislike the loss of outnumber, and believe it should have been compensated. Even up to +6 ranks would not have been totally unfair - because if you're being beaten that badly, you deserve to run away.

Of course I chose Slaves as the case in point, as they are the most offensive example going, but that hardly makes the others immune to the same arguments. Why should a large (60ish) unit of goblins, hardly the most points efficient choice in the world, be able to delay a more expensive and specialised unit of, say, (18) khorne warriors for effectively the entire game?

Oh, and saying Steadfast is here to stay for a 'looo[excessively emphatic number, repeated]ng time' is hardly a guaranteed thing. GW are well known for flip-flopping. Take 40k for instance. In 3 editions they've gone from death-trap vehicles, to automatic-choice vehicles, back to "2 second life span" vehicles. GW have very, very cleared buffed infantry (and I am clearly arguing too much), and quite possibly for a monetary reason. Who knows?

Vipoid
31-10-2012, 21:41
With regard to Steadfast, I can see where you're coming from - having a general nearby doesn't cancel out the fear of the enemy going through your ranks like an immense lawnmower. Or, at the very least, it would probably depend on the general in question.

To be honest, it's an interesting idea, since testing on Ld7 or 8 (especially if you have a reroll) is still a hell of a lot better than needing snake-eyes to avoid running. However, it would weaken steadfast considerably overall (since it would go from virtually auto-passing the check, to just over 50% pass rate for most units), although some people might argue that that's not necessarily a bad thing. Also, it would make steadfast pointless on some units (Steadfast Ld5 night Goblins ftw ;)).

Personally, I don't really mind the general's Ld being applied to steadfast. My personal preference would be that steadfast is broken by disruption - like rank bonus.

Havock
31-10-2012, 22:02
The current state is not "better" than the old heavy cav uber alles thing, it just swung the balance completely in the other direction. 7th ed catered to the people who could eyeball half an inch, 8th ed caters to people who are willing to buy, assemble and paint a million doodz and offers them a very reliably way to not-lose.

IcedCrow
31-10-2012, 22:20
Cap unit size. Thats what we do. Prevent the ludicrous 100-200 model skaven slaves that are eternally stubborn 10s all game and its fine.

Steadfast is a good rule ruined by extremes and encourages death star formations.

Capping unit size still lets those units have a lot of models but doesnt push into thestupid. Things like 30 ogre bull gutstars and 50-60 chosen in one unit also need capped but thats a different topic.

Urgat
31-10-2012, 22:48
I actually wouldn't mind a higher cap to rank bonus (no cap would be plain stupid - both in terms of games mechanic, where a unit could be being mercilessly slaughtered and still be 'winning' combat, and in terms of the logical problem that after a certain point those models are literally just standing there, doing nothing, yet 'add' to the combat resolution). I don't mind them rewarding big units at all - but I genuinely don't understand how people are arguing this mechanic should work this way. Consider the stubborn rule in 6th ed - no one had a problem with it being unaffected by the general, because you had to pay through the nose for stubborn! In the same way, why do people not object to units totally have their LD stat replaced by the general.
Stubborn always works, whether you're 5 or 50. Pretty huge difference. Steadfast isn't free by the way, you pay too, in body count. 20 goblins are cheap. 100, not so ;)


if you're being beaten that badly, you deserve to run away.Not if the point of the unit is to hold. You deserve to run away because your opponent brought chaos warriors and you brought goblins? That's an idea I find horrendous. It's not superior gameplay, tactics, whatever. It's taking a killy unit and rolling dice. Why? With steadfast, the killy unit still kills, and the holding unit still holds. Tehy're both doing their job, and, given time, the killy unit will win anyway. Now either side can shorten the deal by bringing support. That's what should be rewarded, not just one choice over another.


Of course I chose Slaves as the case in point, as they are the most offensive example going, but that hardly makes the others immune to the same arguments. Why should a large (60ish) unit of goblins, hardly the most points efficient choice in the world, be able to delay a more expensive and specialised unit of, say, (18) khorne warriors for effectively the entire game?
This is wrong. Have you tried it? I play goblins, and my most regular opponent plays chaos warriors. I see this scenario practicaly every battle. My friend fields 21 unmarked chaos warriors routinely, and they smash my goblin hordes to bits, on their own. If he manages to combo charge one of these units, it's pretty much garanteed to lose steadfast and run in one game's turn. 18 Khorne warriors with AHW, unsupported, will make 60 goblins flee in two or three rounds of combat tops, garanteed. Remember you don't need to kill all the goblins, you only need to break steadfast.
Slaves are not representative because they're undercosted while benefiting from rules they shouldn't have. They're not designed for 8th ed, they're one of these few units that abuse rules that have otherwise streamlined the powerlevels of pretty much everything.


Oh, and saying Steadfast is here to stay for a 'looo[excessively emphatic number, repeated]ng time' is hardly a guaranteed thing. GW are well known for flip-flopping. Take 40k for instance. In 3 editions they've gone from death-trap vehicles, to automatic-choice vehicles, back to "2 second life span" vehicles. GW have very, very cleared buffed infantry (and I am clearly arguing too much), and quite possibly for a monetary reason. Who knows?
For me, from now till 9th ed is a long time ;)

Now I ask you: would you field goblins at all if steadfast prevented you from using the general's Ld? Think about it. You only need to have more ranks to get steadfast. So a stupid unit of 5 light cav charging the goblins will break a minimum-sized unit of 20, because they're on Ld5. Or then, they're not steadfast, because they've lost a lot of bodies and the stupid gobbos have managed to be outnumbered (outnumbered gobbos, enough said). So they need snake eyes, probably. So, steadfast or not, regardless of what charges them, they're screwed. The only way to avoid that would be to have ranks of 4 or one single line of 20 to have no rank bonus at all (what an absurd notion) so they don't get stuck with ld5 no matter what. Would you field that kind of unit? Truthfully?

logan054
31-10-2012, 23:55
This is wrong. Have you tried it? I play goblins, and my most regular opponent plays chaos warriors. I see this scenario practicaly every battle. My friend fields 21 unmarked chaos warriors routinely, and they smash my goblin hordes to bits, on their own. If he manages to combo charge one of these units, it's pretty much garanteed to lose steadfast and run in one game's turn. 18 Khorne warriors with AHW, unsupported, will make 60 goblins flee in two or three rounds of combat tops, garanteed. Remember you don't need to kill all the goblins, you only need to break steadfast.
Slaves are not representative because they're undercosted while benefiting from rules they shouldn't have. They're not designed for 8th ed, they're one of these few units that abuse rules that have otherwise streamlined the powerlevels of pretty much everything

I think what he is saying is that having more ranks is cut too cut and dry, sure you goblins are paying for those ranks, but what are they paying for a rank? compare this what a unit of chaos warriors is paying for a rank, its nothing really. You need some kind of balancing factor but I don't think ignoring all combat res because you have one more rank than the other guy is silly, in some cases, this doesn't even mean you have more models! An example would be a unit of 16 chaos warriors in a 6 wide formation, vs 15 goblins, lets say those warriors killed 25 goblins over two turns. With the current rules, because they have that extra rank they are totally they don't seem the slightest bit bothered that they have lost nearly all their mates? huh?

Its a little silly really and its giving a very cheap unit far to much of a advantage against a very expensive unit, sure, its only 3 rounds to beat them but thats two turns for the orc player to counter them? why should they get such a advantage simply because they took a cheap unit? Would it not make more sense that the rank advantage simply reduced the leadership test modifier (so kinda like counting as double).

Whats this mean? well, you have to use other tactics such as I don't know, flee?

Lord Solar Plexus
01-11-2012, 00:32
Excepting a very few specific examples (Blade of Realities, Spirit Leech, Death Mask TK), everyone can just use the general's LD combined with Steadfast combined with BSB for basically unbreakable units.


Nope.

It's impossible for everyone to be steadfast, in fact, it is against the rules, so your crusade against the rules ends right here. It's also impossible for everyone to always be within those bubbles. Furthermore, it's quite possible to diminish the effect of said bubbles, as you yourself point out. Please include at least VC and DoC and Lore of Heavens and dead Generals and dead BSBs in your list.

Urgat
01-11-2012, 00:40
I'm not adverse to an alternate system, and I agree it's too much of an all or nothing, I never questionned that, but in the absence of one, steadfast is fine for me. Suggestions like preventing the use of the general's Ld makes steadfast useless. We go from an all to a nothing and, like everybody else, I prefer to have an all rather than a nothing. What about my last paragraph, nobody wants to tackle that? Because that's what it amounts to: anything with low Ld and low fighting prowess is screwed if a smaller (!) unit charges it and win by even 1 (odds of holding on a rerollable Ld4? Surprised nobody has suggested yet that BSB rerolls should be forbidden as well, btw). Which is the total opposite of what steadfast adresses, incidentally. And you can't even control it, because you may be steadfast against something, and you wan't be against something else. Even w/o abusing the size of my units, a minimum-sized goblin unit will be steadfast against most of the units my WoC friend fields besides marauders. So, against chaos, I'm at an almost universal Ld5/6 bar general's unit? Any stupid lone spawn will have my 20 gobs cower in fear? Dread terror, it's back in force! Bah, whatever.

logan054
01-11-2012, 00:56
I don't agree with preventing the use of the generals leadership if steadfast, it has very little effect on warriors (who are pretty much 8 across the board) and to much of a effect on other armies, hell what is steadfast simply meant you passed on any roll of double rather than ignoring combat mods? on the brightside Urgat, we agree on something ;)

BSB's are fine for break tests, its psychology tests that is the problem, its just nerfed fear and terror far to much for my liking.

DaemonReign
01-11-2012, 01:04
I really still Think aggregate ranks (per combat) fixes these issues of steadfast without the need for further Changes*, and without the appearant risk of making steadfast useless for certain armies etcetera.

* = Well give Large Targets 'a rank', too.. and you really got a fully dynamic, fully integrated mechanic.

Urgat
01-11-2012, 01:16
I don't agree with preventing the use of the generals leadership if steadfast, it has very little effect on warriors (who are pretty much 8 across the board) and to much of a effect on other armies, hell what is steadfast simply meant you passed on any roll of double rather than ignoring combat mods? on the brightside Urgat, we agree on something ;)


:D I suppose that in fact we agree with everything we don't argue about :p
I had an idea that makes steadfast scales down progressively: steadfast adds the bonus rank to the Ld of the unit ( capped at 10 obviously. So a goblin unit within range of the general will be hard to break, but even a night goblin unit out of the general's Ld bubble will keep a respectable Ld8). Even if you got 10 ranks (this implies a very weak unit, if you can take that much), casualties will pile fast enough that Ld will drop down to 9, 8, 7 etc quite fast. Not all or nothing anymore, the units effectiveness drops down regularly as casualities increase.

edit: After having a good night's sleep, I realised... I merely renamed SiN, didn't I? "facepalm". I should not post when I'm dead tired >> (that being said I never understood why skavens benefit from SiN but not any other cowardly creatures that have the same mob mentality (and looking at the news and the constant strikes here in my so lovely country, that clearly includes humans :p). Well there you go, steadfast should be SiN when outranking, and if skavens want to be special, they get to have it all the time with SiN.

DaemonReign
01-11-2012, 08:20
Here's the pics I couldn't edit Before Vipoid:
Remember this pic:
156606
Two pics from the same game:
156607
156608

Useless Pictures.. I wasn't really thinking about the damn trees when I took 'em.. :p

ihavetoomuchminis
01-11-2012, 15:21
It doesn't matter.....the pictures are LOVELY!

arthurfallz
01-11-2012, 17:12
Re: The steadfast discussions. Death Star units of 50 is exactly why the "6" spells exist: to hit giant blocks and blow away those points. This is, admittedly, an awful solution to a real problem. I personally feel that higher rank caps are the way to go. I also think that introducing Leadership penalties for Characters for larger units might be a controlling factor. Strength in numbers (Steadfast) still exists, but the huge size of the unit benefits less and less from the presence of a Hero or General.

Rank&File+Command Count < 30 [no penalty]
Rank&File+Command Count > 30 [-1/10 over 30, to a minimum of 1 above the highest Rank&File/Command model).

So there is always a bonus to having a character in the unit, but that unit becomes less useful as the unit size creeps upwards.

dms505
01-11-2012, 18:25
hate cannons hitting everything on a ridden monster.

FashaTheDog
01-11-2012, 19:02
People make such a big deal over silly over-sized units. I mean really, is a Ratom bomb that I dream of fielding as a gag that bad; it's only 450 Skaven slaves, five wide and 90 deep deployed along the 12" line facing a short table edge side stepping towards the enemy squeaking "no where to run, nowhere to hide" (it is almost 6' long and would need a movement tray with handles and two people to move). Just 411 casualties to get rid of Ld10 and if it were to somehow break from combat before suffering heavy losses...

Ghremdal
01-11-2012, 19:22
People make such a big deal over silly over-sized units. I mean really, is a Ratom bomb that I dream of fielding as a gag that bad; it's only 450 Skaven slaves, five wide and 90 deep deployed along the 12" line facing a short table edge side stepping towards the enemy squeaking "no where to run, nowhere to hide" (it is almost 6' long and would need a movement tray with handles and two people to move). Just 411 casualties to get rid of Ld10 and if it were to somehow break from combat before suffering heavy losses...

Well any charge would be a flank charge, so any unit with two ranks would be a LD 7 rerollable.

That is even if you could keep your general even alive through the whole game.

danny-d-b
01-11-2012, 22:30
would love to face that with my helstorm list- that be lots of dead skaven

Kahadras
01-11-2012, 22:34
I don't really know about favorite. Steadfast and Step up are pretty neat (even if I do play High Elves).

Hatred is a strong word but I'm certainly not fond of magic. The big spells, the chucking six dice at something hoping for a miscast, how magic resistance now works etc.

Kahadras

logan054
02-11-2012, 17:16
edit: After having a good night's sleep, I realised... I merely renamed SiN, didn't I? "facepalm". I should not post when I'm dead tired >> (that being said I never understood why skavens benefit from SiN but not any other cowardly creatures that have the same mob mentality (and looking at the news and the constant strikes here in my so lovely country, that clearly includes humans :p). Well there you go, steadfast should be SiN when outranking, and if skavens want to be special, they get to have it all the time with SiN.

LOL I did notice that, I think it simply easier to have after combat res calculated to have the modifiers reduce by how many additional ranks you have, dosn't override any game rules like sin, if you are completely trashed in combat (like losing 30 guys), chances are you will run (which you should really), it does give you incentive to do something other than horde.