PDA

View Full Version : Warhammer 8.5 or 9?



misomiso
11-02-2013, 20:05
There are quite a few rumours about the next edition being released next year some time.

There have also been a few rumours that the next edition will not be an '8.5' (a general update of the existing rules) but a full new edition with new concepts etc.

My question is: Does anyone have any info regarding what GW are thinking at the moment? Is the next edition going to be a full 9th or more an '8.5'?

And what do people want? A full on revamp or just a general update?

TheRaven
11-02-2013, 20:12
History show's that odd numbered editions are the refinement of the bigger overhauls done by the even number editions.

4 was a massive change, 5th added to that.
6th was a HUGE change and invalidated every army book, 7th was a minor adjustment.
8th was a big change (Though not as drastic as 4 or 6.... not be a long shot....)

So history show's 9 will be 8.5, but things could change at any moment. A pattern is only a pattern until it breaks..... Hastings recently said changes will be coming in a few years.

I think the only thing we can say for certain is that I don't see GW ever invalidating every army book again.

misomiso
11-02-2013, 20:24
Really stupid question, but who are Hastings and Harry?! I hear them mentioned a lot, and Hastings replied to one of my posts, but I am in the dark.

Are they just Forum members with a lot of connections? are they editors of warseer? Are they connected to Beasts of War (I think hastings had a N.I. flag)?

Lord Inquisitor
11-02-2013, 20:30
History show's that odd numbered editions are the refinement of the bigger overhauls done by the even number editions.

4 was a massive change, 5th added to that.
6th was a HUGE change and invalidated every army book, 7th was a minor adjustment.
8th was a big change (Though not as drastic as 4 or 6.... not be a long shot....)

I dunno, I think I'd have argued that the change between 7th and 8th was the biggest in WFB history. No other change went quite so deep to the core mechanics like changing the charge mechanics, strike in initiative, magic... Certainly I'd have said it was a bigger change than 5th to 6th, despite the revamp of all the army books then.

I agree though, this seems to have been the format and I'd be very surprised if GW reinvented the wheel with 9th edition, not when they've actually got the majority of army books starting slowly to be redone for the changes in 8th.

TheRaven
11-02-2013, 20:30
Basically the only people on this forum that give accurate rumors. Other people come and go and occasionally give something accurate but if one of those 2 says something you can be 90% sure it's right. The other 10% is something similar to what they said, just slightly off :p

And the hierarchy appears to be that Hastings knows more than Harry.

TheDungen
11-02-2013, 21:12
Yeah but Harry tells us more than hastings, and harry is also structured in was that hastings isnt, hastings drops by when he feels like it and drops a one liner.

as for the edition, we have no real rumours it is even coming yet people have just been counting, a few interviews have mentioned an upcomming edition but there is nothing tangible. not all editions have been equally long.

Odin
11-02-2013, 21:38
This (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?143376-Do-not-post-a-question-until-you-have-read-this-first) will tell you everything you need to know.

The Dude
11-02-2013, 22:01
Not news or rumours.

Thread moved

The Dude
The Warseer Inquisition

75hastings69
11-02-2013, 22:04
..... Hastings recently said changes will be coming in a few years.....

I think that was actually Harry, we seem to get misquoted and credited with each others rumours very often...... There was even a rumour around once that we were the same person :shifty:


Really stupid question, but who are Hastings and Harry?! I hear them mentioned a lot, and Hastings replied to one of my posts, but I am in the dark.

Are they just Forum members with a lot of connections? are they editors of warseer? Are they connected to Beasts of War (I think hastings had a N.I. flag)?

Just 2 hobbyists that have been in the hobby so long that they know a few folk on a more personal level, I think Harry would agree with that statement. It's not an N.I. Flag, it's a Maltese/Templar cross.


Basically the only people on this forum that give accurate rumors. Other people come and go and occasionally give something accurate but if one of those 2 says something you can be 90% sure it's right. The other 10% is something similar to what they said, just slightly off :p

And the hierarchy appears to be that Hastings knows more than Harry.

It's about 50/50 to be fair. I USED to know a lot more (and always knew a lot more than I shared) but recently I've quit the GW hobby so my future knowledge is now coming to the end of its usefulness, or at least by the end of 2014 I'll be spent :D

There are plenty of other good reliable posters out there, everyone starts somewhere, one of my own first rumours was the plastic rat ogres, I was laughed at (even though I had the sprues ;) ) and it pains me to see people bashing rumour mongrels who are usually doing it for no other reason than to spread a little excitement about a hobby they love.


Yeah but Harry tells us more than hastings, and harry is also structured in was that hastings isnt, hastings drops by when he feels like it and drops a one liner.

as for the edition, we have no real rumours it is even coming yet people have just been counting, a few interviews have mentioned an upcomming edition but there is nothing tangible. not all editions have been equally long.

Harry does a good round up I'll give him that :D I'm not sure he tells you more though? I'm certainly not strutted, I pride myself in that, I have the attention span of a gnat, hence why I had nearly every army GW ever made usually still on sprues or assembled and under coated :D

Back O/T, I doubt we'll see an 8.5. But maybe Harry should answer?

Dr. Cheesesteak
11-02-2013, 23:59
History show's that odd numbered editions are the refinement of the bigger overhauls done by the even number editions.

4 was a massive change, 5th added to that.
6th was a HUGE change and invalidated every army book, 7th was a minor adjustment.
8th was a big change (Though not as drastic as 4 or 6.... not be a long shot....)

So history show's 9 will be 8.5, but things could change at any moment. A pattern is only a pattern until it breaks..... Hastings recently said changes will be coming in a few years.

I think the only thing we can say for certain is that I don't see GW ever invalidating every army book again.
this is what I'm really really hoping for. I love 8th Ed and want it to last as long as possible. If 9th is just some small tweaks and maybe a big optional rule added (i.e. 40k-esque Alliances), I'd be verry happy (although I really don't like the idea of single-general Alliances. But I think a lot of players would forego the option anyway).

As for the time window? I've heard from players it'll probably be 2014 (as it fits the 4-year pattern of recent releases). But I've heard it "has" to be by 2015, as apparently there are copyright laws that require updating every 5 years? Therefore that's why Editions tend to be less than 5 years now... Not sure of the validity to that claim, but it is a claim!

Gaargod
12-02-2013, 00:41
Whatever happened to The Voice, incidentally? I vaguely remember someone with that username posting basically 100% stuff (to the extent I was thought he was actually from GW). Or have I totally made that up?


Incidentally, where on earth were these rumours of a new edition already? I'm a little surprised, I hadn't been paying attention religiously, but I hadn't really noticed too much. I assumed all the posts talking about 9th ed were wishlisting. Apparently, I need to pay more attention.


Also, Dr. Cheesesteak... I'm fairly sure that's not a concern. Generally speaking, Copyright Laws last a lot longer than that. I have vague memories of toy copyrights being more in the realm of 50years - I'm not even sure you'd be applying Copyright to individual editions rather than just to Warhammer as a whole. Saying that, my knowledge is deeply imperfect. For that matter, go read the Other GW Discussion forum, the thread discussing GW's recent... altercation (read: PR disaster) on trying to get a book banned because they've trademarked Space Marine (or so they think). Or the ChapterHouse Studios thread, for much the same thing.

In any case, I suspect the new edition, if it is coming, is because they want a new edition. Monies is monies, after all. And if they still refuse to get with the program and update their existing rules via erratas/what have you, then... well, it's the only way to update their rules.

Azazyll
12-02-2013, 01:07
I USED to know a lot more (and always knew a lot more than I shared) but recently I've quit the GW hobby so my future knowledge is now coming to the end of its usefulness, or at least by the end of 2014 I'll be spent :D

It's like watching the elves leave Middle-Earth :'(


On copyright, it probably has more to do with book supplying rules, which can be rather arcane.

someone2040
12-02-2013, 02:52
Hmm... While I think a 8.5 would be good. Currently the rules I feel just need tweaks to stop abuse, clear up a few situations, tone down magic a smidge, stick in some proper ally rules ala 40k and then they'll be done.

But what do I expect? There's been a lot of stuff recently going on about how Fantasy isn't doing so well, profits down, costs up, that kinda stuff. Will we get radical changes again because GW feel they need to make another push to make Fantasy more popular again? Who knows. Personally I don't think the rules are the problem with Fantasy (as per above, I would hope 8.5 would be good). Costs are definitely the factor which GW don't quite seem to get.

So essentially. Who knows what we'll get. Rules rumours have all but dissapeared these days apart from a few insights gotten from White Dwarf. And a new edition of Warhammer is 100% rules. So doubt we'll be hearing anything for at least another year in terms of what we'll get in 9th.

TheDungen
12-02-2013, 04:14
Not news or rumours.

Thread moved

The Dude
The Warseer Inquisition

That was real mod.



It's about 50/50 to be fair. I USED to know a lot more (and always knew a lot more than I shared) but recently I've quit the GW hobby so my future knowledge is now coming to the end of its usefulness, or at least by the end of 2014 I'll be spent http://www.warseer.com/forums/warseer/images/smilies/biggrin.png

There are plenty of other good reliable posters out there, everyone starts somewhere, one of my own first rumours was the plastic rat ogres, I was laughed at (even though I had the sprues http://www.warseer.com/forums/warseer/images/smilies/wink.png ) and it pains me to see people bashing rumour mongrels who are usually doing it for no other reason than to spread a little excitement about a hobby they love.

Harry does a good round up I'll give him that http://www.warseer.com/forums/warseer/images/smilies/biggrin.png I'm not sure he tells you more though?


No offence intended Hastings but i believe I joined after you quit the gw hobby so that's why i haven't seen you in you prime. Not that i complain, the ammount of work that i guess you did and harry still do put into the whole rumour mongering thing is something i can respect, but if you folks want to spend less time doing it i find it very understandable (especially since you dont play gw games any more) it is basically a charity.



Back O/T, I doubt we'll see an 8.5. But maybe Harry should answer?


This is exactly what i'm talking about hastings:p
Is that supposed to be rumour, or is it just an educated guess? Cause when you say stuff like that someone is going to say "We have a rumour from hastings that 9th edition is major overhaul"

theJ
12-02-2013, 06:15
This is exactly what i'm talking about hastings:p
Is that supposed to be rumour, or is it just an educated guess? Cause when you say stuff like that someone is going to say "We have a rumour from hastings that 9th edition is major overhaul"

Mind you, a 'guess' from the mighty hastings carries more weight than "I haz pictures" level rumours from anyone else.
All bow your heads in reverance, for hastings has spoken.
/fangirl

On a slightly more serious note, if he's saying "doubt", then he's not saying "will". If people choose to treat that as anything else, that is their problem. 'least that's how I see it.

TheDungen
12-02-2013, 08:50
that's the thing you never know when he actually knows something and when he just states his opinion and he has away of avoiding direct questions.

logan054
12-02-2013, 10:06
Normally as has been said its a tweak of the system on the odd numbers, I do fear that we might see crazy flying rules like we have in 40k, allies would certainly be a very thing to add to the game, it would be very cool to be able to use some bloodletter with my Khorne army again, bringing the BRB lores onto more equal standing would be good, just as removing lore attributes that make spells really good against certain armies (such as lore light).

CommanderCax
12-02-2013, 10:10
I dunno, I think I'd have argued that the change between 7th and 8th was the biggest in WFB history. No other change went quite so deep to the core mechanics like changing the charge mechanics, strike in initiative, magic... Certainly I'd have said it was a bigger change than 5th to 6th, despite the revamp of all the army books then.

Absolutely not.

The transition from 3rd to 4th ed. was far more drastic than any other after it. The transition from 7th to 8th ed. seems like a proof-read in comparison.

It changed the overall core mechanics down to about every single detail. It changed even the stats (getting rid of WP, Cl, Int), the "to hit table", movement as a whole (including maneuvers), armour (save) modifiers, rules for flying, the whole "break test mechanic", the whole "flee and pursuit mechanic", about all war machines including chariots etc. besides your mentioned mechanics like strike (not) in Initiative and magic.

yabbadabba
12-02-2013, 10:53
GW release new editions for cash purposes, not rules purposes. For GW not to release a new edition of the rules would indicate a major change in philosophy, or another major release to make up the short fall.

logan054
12-02-2013, 11:20
GW release new editions for cash purposes, not rules purposes. For GW not to release a new edition of the rules would indicate a major change in philosophy, or another major release to make up the short fall.

Indeed, I think most people know that by now ;) we saw this with the introduction of flying rules in 6th ed 40k, warhammer armybooks have seemed more balanced than previous editions armybooks at least.

m1acca1551
12-02-2013, 11:50
WFB new found balance would suggest that GW are more interested in stopping the rot for now as opposed to a full scale saviour, i believe that 9th will be 8.5 in disguise, GW can hardly afford to radically move the boudaries of 8th with out damaging or pissing off what can be seen as a dwindling yet stable fan base.

WFB to me is simply not popular enough to risk a major game change so a toning down of certain pieces, revision of others and the adding of a few new rules to make a greater balance possible will be the aim of the game. For most people WFB is in a very good place right now, better than it's ever been and with a few changes can be even better.

So with that in mind does GW risk flipping it on it's head in order to make profit at the risk of losing people who were finally "happy" or do you change it slightly enough to warrant a new book so you can charge people for it?

Remember WFB is not 40k, you can change 40k as much as you like and still they will cry for more, WFB fans are happier now than they have been in a long time.

Well most of us are :P

Daniel36
12-02-2013, 12:35
Personally I hope the new edition will be a barebone basic rule set with the Most Important Rule being reinstated. I hope that it will ask players to come up with house rules far more than it does now. I hope that, with this barebone "you enjoy it the way you and your friends want to" approach, casual and theme players will be able to enjoy the game more (as some of us are unlucky in that our regular opponents are tournament minded power players), and I hope that tournament organizers will play into this house rules are fun train of thought and come up with competition rules and scenarios specific to their tournament to keep tournament players on their toes, at the same time quite possibly eliminating auto-win cheesefests, perhaps even strengthening themed lists a little.

That's what I want. Many people are very adamant about playing by the book, and I am no different, but the book is currently not catering much to my needs. Thankfully there is Storm of Magic, which is more to my taste, but not everyone wants to play that.

MiyamatoMusashi
12-02-2013, 13:05
My understanding (and don't bother asking where I heard it... if I tell you "Tom Kirby told me", would that be any more believable than "I'm a playtester" or "I overheard two blackshirts talking in Bugman's"?) is that GW are (or have been) exploring/brainstorming ways to make big changes to Warhammer. How big? Well, I personally think 8th compared to 7th is already the biggest change Warhammer has ever had, but they're looking bigger.

Basically, it comes back to the problem that it costs about the same to make a new Warhammer release as a new 40K release, but the 40K release will make twice as much money. Even if a Warhammer release still makes a profit, it's a massive opportunity cost. (GW's recently announced half-year profits were respectable so presumably their full-year numbers will be good too; but they just released a new 40K, so of course they're making money. They can't release a new 40K every year, so they need Warhammer to take up the slack. There will be a new Warhammer in 2014 but if it only makes half or even three-quarters of what 40K did in 2012, that's a massive problem for them). 8 was a big change compared to 7, but still not anywhere near the popularity and money-making capabilities of 40K. So as I understand it, we're going to be getting a 9, not an 8.5... but it'll be so different that they might as well skip 9 entirely and call it 10th edition, if you see what I mean.

In fact from what I hear they're looking at going right back to square one. Asking fundamental questions like "why exactly is 40K more popular than Warhammer in the first place?", that kind of thing. Spend a few minutes thinking about it (they're spending much more than minutes on it!) and you'll realise that's the kind of question that might lead to answers that veterans may not be comfortable with, but it's not veterans that GW are chasing, as we all know.

So yeah. In answer to the OP: expect Warhammer 9 next year, not 8.5.

Francis
12-02-2013, 13:19
@ MiyamatoMusashi; If what you are claiming turns out to be true I think a lot of the old-timers are going to be digging the old torches and pitchforks out of their cupboards. People who play warhammer seems to be playing it mainly thanks to it's very tactical element. If they wan't to increase sales by turning it into a more fast paced, easier and less serious game like 40k I think they risk antagonizing a lot of their player base.

For the record I play both 40k and Warhammer, and I enjoy both games but for different reasons. I do not think a 40k approach would help me appreciate Warhammer more than I already do.

Banville
12-02-2013, 13:22
That's completely the worng question they should be asking themselves, then. People who want to play 40k, play 40k. People who want to play 40k with swords play Blood Angels. WHFB needs to differentiate itself as a product. If they want to look at sales figures they should really ask themselves what regular army book releases or staggered products a la Privateer Press might do for their profit margins.

MiyamatoMusashi
12-02-2013, 13:23
For the record I play both 40k and Warhammer, and I enjoy both games but for different reasons. I do not think a 40k approach would help me appreciate Warhammer more than I already do.

Hey, I'm with you. But then, I don't wear a suit.

Lord Solar Plexus
12-02-2013, 14:01
WFB new found balance would suggest that GW are more interested in stopping the rot for now as opposed to a full scale saviour, i believe that 9th will be 8.5 in disguise, GW can hardly afford to radically move the boudaries of 8th with out damaging or pissing off what can be seen as a dwindling yet stable fan base.


Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?



WFB to me is simply not popular enough to risk a major game change so a toning down of certain pieces, revision of others and the adding of a few new rules to make a greater balance possible will be the aim of the game. For most people WFB is in a very good place right now, better than it's ever been and with a few changes can be even better.

So with that in mind does GW risk flipping it on it's head in order to make profit at the risk of losing people who were finally "happy" or do you change it slightly enough to warrant a new book so you can charge people for it?


From what I hear and read, WFB has never been considerably more or less popular, at least not in comparison to its sister system, and yet it underwent a couple of pretty radical changes. Popularity or a lack thereof can I think be used as an argument both ways. As has been pointed out elsewhere, more active competition in a game based on popular tropes that cannot be copyrighted or trademarked as easily as Asstarts, Dark Asstarts, Space-, Wolf-, Blood-, Skull- or other Asstarts could mean that they're a bit more cautious...or it could mean that they feel the need to risk something, I really don't know.

I'm personally for small tweaks and changes, too!

underscore
12-02-2013, 14:04
To be honest, the biggest factor in Fantasy's mass popularly will probably be the Creative Assembly game, not that I can see that being out by 2014.

While we're wishlisting though: having the game scale from warband through to army would be pretty high on the list. Would certainty offer a lower barrier of entry. Certainty bit too complex to be feasible, but I see no reason for that to stop me wishing. :-)

Lord Solar Plexus
12-02-2013, 14:20
+1, underscore!

Dark Aly
12-02-2013, 15:05
yup. I like that idea too.

jtrowell
12-02-2013, 16:42
Compare the financial cost of an average Fantasy army with one from 40k, and you won't wonder anymore.

In 40k, you still can buy just a starter box and one or two smaller box and have a somewhat varied army of 1000 points, with each individual box being useable as a viable unit.

In Fantasy, to build *one* of our main infantry units you will often have to guy 2, 3, 4 or even 5+ boxes.

yabbadabba
12-02-2013, 16:46
Compare the financial cost of an average Fantasy army with one from 40k, and you won't wonder anymore.
In 40k, you still can buy just a starter box and one or two smaller box and have a somewhat varied army of 1000 points, with each individual box being useable as a viable unit.
In Fantasy, to build *one* of our main infantry units you will often have to guy 2, 3, 4 or even 5+ boxes. Disagree with that latter bit mate. If you want to compete at tournaments then maybe, and what beginner should go anywhere near a tournament, but the game is just as playable with small units.

MiyamatoMusashi
12-02-2013, 16:56
It's not just beginners who buy new armies.

I've got, erm... seven... no, eight Fantasy armies. I'd quite like to have a Tomb Kings army as well. If a box of Skeletons (for example) were a usable unit, I'd go for it. To have to buy 3-5 boxes just to get one usable unit... no way.

hardyworld
12-02-2013, 18:40
To be honest, the biggest factor in Fantasy's mass popularly will probably be the Creative Assembly game, not that I can see that being out by 2014.

While we're wishlisting though: having the game scale from warband through to army would be pretty high on the list. Would certainty offer a lower barrier of entry. Certainty bit too complex to be feasible, but I see no reason for that to stop me wishing. :-)
I completely agree. Not having Warbands rules included in the 8th Ed. rulebook was a big disappointment. The 8th Ed. teased that larger battle system (fantasy version of 40k Apocalypse) for the future too. Personally, I'd love for fantasy to scale better from warbands to skirmishes to 2000+ point battles. Adding importance to battle missions in smaller games and deemphasizing it in larger ones. Adding character building to warbands, but not including character sheets in battles. This would help the hobby much more than a Fantasy Apocalypse expansion would. Also, bring back the Victory Chart!

Dr. Cheesesteak
12-02-2013, 19:45
That's completely the worng question they should be asking themselves, then. People who want to play 40k, play 40k. People who want to play 40k with swords play Blood Angels. WHFB needs to differentiate itself as a product. If they want to look at sales figures they should really ask themselves what regular army book releases or staggered products a la Privateer Press might do for their profit margins.
qft


Compare the financial cost of an average Fantasy army with one from 40k, and you won't wonder anymore.

In 40k, you still can buy just a starter box and one or two smaller box and have a somewhat varied army of 1000 points, with each individual box being useable as a viable unit.

In Fantasy, to build *one* of our main infantry units you will often have to guy 2, 3, 4 or even 5+ boxes.
qft too. But I think there's a variety of reasons why 40k is more popular. Imo, these are them:

- 40k is generally cheaper
- 40k is generally less intimidating in the hobby aspect (less models to assemble+paint)
- 40k is 50% Space Marines which look so cool to little kids
- 40k is sci-fi which seems to have a broader appeal in general
- 40k is shooting-focused and nowadays I guess it's cooler to shoot things than stab things or cast magic on things (I suppose this is just a repeat of the above point)

Anyway, those are my guesses. It's a fundamental perception thing on the size and setting, not an actual gameplay issue as to why Fantasy is less popular than 40k.


To be honest, the biggest factor in Fantasy's mass popularly will probably be the Creative Assembly game, not that I can see that being out by 2014.

While we're wishlisting though: having the game scale from warband through to army would be pretty high on the list. Would certainty offer a lower barrier of entry. Certainty bit too complex to be feasible, but I see no reason for that to stop me wishing. :-)
I read they actually are trying/expecting the Total Warhammer game to be out by year's end. *cross fingers*, although a simultaneous release w/ 9th Ed in 2014 (assuming it'll be out 2014) would be kinda cool(?).

And I really like you're idea, too. That'd definitely make the game more accessible.

popisdead
12-02-2013, 19:51
And what do people want? A full on revamp or just a general update?

New Wood Elf book :shifty:

I want the same thing 7th did for 6th and 5th ed 40k did for 4th ed 40k. The game is pretty fun and (generally) has tools to deal with anything.

Glen_Savet
12-02-2013, 21:08
It's not just beginners who buy new armies.

I've got, erm... seven... no, eight Fantasy armies. I'd quite like to have a Tomb Kings army as well. If a box of Skeletons (for example) were a usable unit, I'd go for it. To have to buy 3-5 boxes just to get one usable unit... no way.

I disagree with this friend. You can pretty easily play a game of fantasy with units of 10. My local shop has been running a 750 point campaign for the last two months and you'd be hard pressed to find a unit in any of the armies that numbers more than about 20 models.

misomiso
12-02-2013, 21:57
For me the two issues are cost and rules.

The rise of Warmachine shows there is big demand for a Fantasy game that is fun, tactically interesting, with good rules and reasnoble cost. One of the best points of warmachine is that you can have your army, but by just changing one model (the caster) you can have completely different tactical consideration. Fantasy is so expensive to get into in comparison, and to experiment with different tactics you need to invest a great deal more.

With regards to rules I’m in the 9th edition camp. I think a complete overhaul would be good. I think GW has to change for the 20th Century. It’s just not viable to not have and updated rules for the game, and having such discrepancy between army books. It wouldn’t take much to do a yearly update, and by balancing the armies everyone would be much happier.

But I wouldn’t mind an 8.75; by that I mean keeping the rules basically the same, but with major tweaks. Steadfast could use some work, and a complete revamp of the magic system would be quite nice. Magic is one the big weaknesses imo. I know they like it chaotic, but its just too random. I'd rather it was a big part of the game consistently.

That’s my two cents.

Lord Solar Plexus
13-02-2013, 04:23
Compare the financial cost of an average Fantasy army with one from 40k, and you won't wonder anymore.

In 40k, you still can buy just a starter box and one or two smaller box and have a somewhat varied army of 1000 points, with each individual box being useable as a viable unit.

In Fantasy, to build *one* of our main infantry units you will often have to guy 2, 3, 4 or even 5+ boxes.

I compared. I disagree. You can of course get the same tiny but playable army with the WFB starter set and two more boxes. That's even more true if you take "a" starter set as you said, as in army box, and two more. Add to this that 1k of 40k is less in WFB - perhaps 600 points - and it's quite possible.

Even if there is a discrepancy, it's so small that it carries little weight and cannot serve to explain the difference. People spend thousands of euros on the hobby each year, so I really can't see what difference a couple hundred would make.

Shifte
15-11-2013, 13:21
I compared. I disagree. You can of course get the same tiny but playable army with the WFB starter set and two more boxes. That's even more true if you take "a" starter set as you said, as in army box, and two more. Add to this that 1k of 40k is less in WFB - perhaps 600 points - and it's quite possible.

Even if there is a discrepancy, it's so small that it carries little weight and cannot serve to explain the difference. People spend thousands of euros on the hobby each year, so I really can't see what difference a couple hundred would make.

Hey.

I quit Fantasy with 8th edition. Most people I know did too. In fact, my local GW store (Glasgow) is almost entirely 40k now. I miss Warhammer Fantasy, and I hope 9th edition is a game I can enjoy. I severely doubt it will be, because I can't see GW backtracking to earlier, more popular rules sets.

However, the LARGEST barrier to entry (or re-entry) into WHFB is the price. The Army Books are more expensive, the units are more expensive (WTF is up with the Witch Elf price?!) and the game is now about huge infantry blocks and massive centrepiece models which cost a bucketload. I was part of the mass-exodus of players who left with 8th ed. Whenever I get the urge to pull out my old models and start again, I realise that to even give these rules (which I hate, but that is off topic) another chance, it'll cost me an arm and a leg. This realisation always leads to me deciding that I'm better off spending less and getting an all new 40k army or allied detachment.

If you love 8th edition and can afford to pay these prices then I am happy for you. Not all of us do or can, though.

Shifte
15-11-2013, 13:22
Misread the date on this thread. Damn it, google.

Sorry for the threadromancy.

IcedCrow
15-11-2013, 14:04
Hey.

I quit Fantasy with 8th edition. Most people I know did too. In fact, my local GW store (Glasgow) is almost entirely 40k now. I miss Warhammer Fantasy, and I hope 9th edition is a game I can enjoy. I severely doubt it will be, because I can't see GW backtracking to earlier, more popular rules sets.

However, the LARGEST barrier to entry (or re-entry) into WHFB is the price. The Army Books are more expensive, the units are more expensive (WTF is up with the Witch Elf price?!) and the game is now about huge infantry blocks and massive centrepiece models which cost a bucketload. I was part of the mass-exodus of players who left with 8th ed. Whenever I get the urge to pull out my old models and start again, I realise that to even give these rules (which I hate, but that is off topic) another chance, it'll cost me an arm and a leg. This realisation always leads to me deciding that I'm better off spending less and getting an all new 40k army or allied detachment.

If you love 8th edition and can afford to pay these prices then I am happy for you. Not all of us do or can, though.

Warhammer where I am is bigger now than it was in 7th indicating that the 8th ruleset is more popular where I am than 7th was.

The game *can* be about huge infantry blocks, but does not have to be about huge infantry blocks. I find that to be a massive exaggeration, that perpetually feeds itself.

I agree with the prices debate though. The prices are a massive barrier to entry.

yabbadabba
15-11-2013, 17:38
The game *can* be about huge infantry blocks, but does not have to be about huge infantry blocks. I find that to be a massive exaggeration, that perpetually feeds itself. yeah but according to some on here there is only one way to play :shifty:
WFB has definitely got a variety of playing approaches now.

IcedCrow
15-11-2013, 18:05
yeah but according to some on here there is only one way to play :shifty:
WFB has definitely got a variety of playing approaches now.

I keep forgetting.

snyggejygge
16-11-2013, 08:23
I dunno, I think I'd have argued that the change between 7th and 8th was the biggest in WFB history. No other change went quite so deep to the core mechanics like changing the charge mechanics, strike in initiative, magic... Certainly I'd have said it was a bigger change than 5th to 6th, despite the revamp of all the army books then.

I agree though, this seems to have been the format and I'd be very surprised if GW reinvented the wheel with 9th edition, not when they've actually got the majority of army books starting slowly to be redone for the changes in 8th.

It wasn´t just about revamping all the army books, 6:th changed the way we build armies by introducing core, special, rare, by making characters heroes or lords, it changed the magic system more than 8:th changed it (gone were the card game), it also added a few minor rule tweaks to power down characters such as outnumbering, remove fly high & having a max amount of points to use on magic items etc etc.

& if you look further back 3:rd to 4:th introduced even more changes than that (back then you always hit in initiative order as well, so 8:th ed is merely a throwback in that regard), so yes 8:th was big change in the way the game lays, but not as big as the 4:th & 6:th change.

Belakor
16-11-2013, 09:25
I am fairly certain that a new edition for Warhammer will be a massive change, and not 8.5.

The problem with Warhammer from what I have gathered is not about rules. It is about entry "fee" and the time it takes to finish a "standard" army. I suspect GW will address the latter with a new edition, and somehow manage to lower the entry fee. I also think allies will boost sales because you do not need a new army, and for me it has already started with T&T.

Odin
16-11-2013, 11:09
I think I either want WH8.5, or I want the biggest overhaul the game has ever seen.

I love 8th, it's the best edition I've played (and I started with 3rd). If the basic structure of Warhammer is going to be retained, then some relatively simple tweaks should see 9th even better again (obvious things like a modest nerf to steadfast, slight rebalancing of magic).

What I'd really like is a ground-up rebuild, something that allows a bit more fidelity in the statistics - so that Orcs can be strength 3.5 and lose the chopper rule for example. That would probably involve moving to a D10 system. Like I say, never going to happen, so I'll take 8.5 thanks.

Sexiest_hero
16-11-2013, 13:05
8.5 for me. I'd take anything that keeps thunderstomp, the horde formation and (Flameshield) steadfast. I love the sight of armies being torn to bloody ribbons, and would hate to have to play undead and daemons only for my army to stay put, just like everybody did in 7th.

mypantsarefree3
17-11-2013, 12:18
Another vote here for 8.5 Only changes I'd like:

1. Thunderstomp can Stomp monstrous infantry, monstrous calvary, and regular calvary.

2. Negating ranks when flanked or rear-charged also negates steadfast. Yea for more tactics!

3. Megadeath spells allow ward saves and max 1 wound to infantry/calvary, D3 wounds to monstrous infantry and calvary, and D6 wounds to monsters.

Bam, there are my three genie wishes. And I didn't even wish for more wishes :) if I had a fourth, however, it'd be for psychology to matter more somehow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Francis
17-11-2013, 13:02
Yup, 8.5 would be great, the rules as they stand today are pretty good all things considered. I am also in the camp that would claim that is perfectly possible to everything from 500p warbands to 5000+ battles with the current system. I actually prefer 3000+ (with no grand armies rules) to the standard 2000-2500 since the armies just grows huge and magic stops being such a big factor, you also gotta start taking units you don't use that often since you can't take that 3rd unit of skillcrushers.

Odin
17-11-2013, 14:23
Oh, something to make Magic Resistance useful against all spells that target a unit, not the limited benefit it currently gives.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

yabbadabba
17-11-2013, 14:59
Oh, something to make Magic Resistance useful against all spells that target a unit, not the limited benefit it currently gives.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk MR as a ward save vs spells, with characters able to choose the best ward save available to them.

Charistoph
17-11-2013, 16:09
MR as a ward save vs spells, with characters able to choose the best ward save available to them.

I don't know, the previous +1 Dispel Die per MR was rather nice, especially when compared to the dicing that goes on with the current Magic Phase. WS is fine for the previous Lores, though.

Just balance MR to how the Magic Phase is performed. If it's diceapalooza, then MR adds dispel dice, if it's more constrained, then keep it as a WS modifier.

mypantsarefree3
17-11-2013, 20:40
I don't know, the previous +1 Dispel Die per MR was rather nice, especially when compared to the dicing that goes on with the current Magic Phase. WS is fine for the previous Lores, though.

Just balance MR to how the Magic Phase is performed. If it's diceapalooza, then MR adds dispel dice, if it's more constrained, then keep it as a WS modifier.

Maybe I haven't thought this through enough, but what if MR stacked with your ward or created its own against magic like it does now AND against magic weapons, including shooting. I think that'd be much more interesting and we'd see different character kits. It'd have to only affect the wearer in this case or be priced accordingly if the whole unit could benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

yabbadabba
17-11-2013, 21:01
Actually MR is pretty nails as it is. The only problem with it is that it doesn't do anything to spells that allow no saves, so maybe it can always give a minimum 6+ ward save vs hostile spells.

snyggejygge
17-11-2013, 21:43
I´d just make all spells do wounds instead of insta-death & let all spells still allow wardsaves & thereby make MR work against all spells.

Small change that would change the magicphase a lot I´d reckon.

I would also like a change to steadfast, for starters it should be disrupted by flankcharges & it shouldn´t stack with generals LD unless he is in the unit, make the opponent choose whether to use steadfast LD OR generals inspiring presence but with modifiers.

Lastly I´d like to change a few of the common items by either upping the pointscost of certain op items that´s too cheap.

I like the game how it plays now & wouldn´t want too big changes unless they make a major overhaul to the rules to make the game flow faster & reward good movement more.

boli
17-11-2013, 22:47
I *hope* that 9th just organise the rules for army sizes. E.g from 500-1.5k is a skirmish game and subject to different rules than a standard list likewise grand army rules tweaked... At least this is the only change I hope.

Forse
17-11-2013, 23:29
- 40k is generally cheaper
- 40k is generally less intimidating in the hobby aspect (less models to assemble+paint)
- 40k is 50% Space Marines which look so cool to little kids
- 40k is sci-fi which seems to have a broader appeal in general
- 40k is shooting-focused and nowadays I guess it's cooler to shoot things than stab things or cast magic on things (I suppose this is just a repeat of the above point)

Anyway, those are my guesses. It's a fundamental perception thing on the size and setting, not an actual gameplay issue as to why Fantasy is less popular than 40k.

Yeah, I've been thinking along those lines too. But then I think about RPGs and big hollywood movies. Dungeons and Dragons and other fantasy RPGs seem to consistently rule the RPG market. Fantasy movies, albeit few, are immensely popular. LotR, Game of Thrones and Harry Potter for example. It just seems to me that the fantasy franchise seems to be doing so well in other areas than wargaming. Maybe wargaming is more appealing in a sci-fi setting? Ie, while it's cool to play a knight in shining armor romping through an old castle, larger-scale war is cooler among the stars, guns blazing?

Another explanation I heard is the movement phase. For a newcomer, it's more intuitive to just measure model for model and move them in a group, as opposed to fiddling with fronts and rears and wheeling. "Err, I think I'll try that game with the round bases."

Dunno, these are just a few thoughts on the matter.

Oh, on the matter of smaller scale battles, going from skirmishes up to full scale armies. I would absolutely love that. And I get the feeling that loads of people who used to be in the hobby would love a chance to play small battles. I have several friends, for example, who every now and then say "wouldn't it be cool if we got some models and started Mordheim, just for fun". Folks who don't wanna make any big-time investments in terms of time or money, but who could very well be bitten by the Warhammer bug once they get started.

Kakapo42
18-11-2013, 01:09
I'd like 8.1, but I'll settle for 8.5.

I have only just started to get into Warhammer, in fact I'm still in the process of putting together an army and so do have yet to have my first game of it. I do NOT want to have to just finish putting together a force I am happy with, only to have to shell out a hefty wad of money and tear it all down and start over from scratch just because I happened to start up at the wrong time. It's also one of the reasons that I'm very likely the only Wood Elf player in the universe who DOESN'T want a new army book (not yet at least).

I think the mechanics themselves are adequate enough as they are. I think it's the other parts of the rulebook that need attention. If I were put in charge of rulebook development I'd focus more on them. Give more detail on painting techniques. Give some tips for writing your own background. Expand the collecting section, and show that it is very possible to have a fun and enjoyable game using only 10-20 strong units. Show the ideal sorts of armies the rulebook was designed with in mind. Make it clear just what sort of experience this set or rules is meant to produce. Now obviously different people enjoy different things, so it should also be made clear that you are free to tinker with and tweak and experiment with the rules yourself.

That being said I imagine It'd probably alienate a large swathe of people and I'd probably be fired for not producing a financially successful product, but that's what I'd do.

I hear talk of bringing it in more with modern times. I don't want that. I think one of the things I like so much about this hobby is that it isn't new. It's not ultramodern or high-tech or digital. It's analogue. It uses physical objects you manipulate yourself. I think part of why I do this hobby now is because to me it's a retreat, a place I can go to get away from the 21st century. Some people take holidays to remote locations so they can get away from it all for a bit, I think instead I take holidays into this hobby. In fact that also might explain why Fantasy settings have suddenly started to interest me so much recently (it used to be that I'd give them a wide berth and stick exclusively to science fiction, but now I enjoy both equally).

End rant.

NurglesRot
18-11-2013, 02:29
I'd be happy with a revision of 8th edition to tweak some of the rules.

My shortlist that I would like to see change (in no particular order)

- Make Magic less of a "must have" and tone down several of the "uber kill spells" Looking at you Purple Sun, Dwellers Below and Pit of Shades.
- Remove the laser guided cannons. They should scatter or have some form of Ballistic skill intervention to them. Scatter minus BS to resolve the initial bounce or something like that.
- Disruption cancels out steadfast and steadfast only counts the second rank onwards, not the first
- Ridden Monsters viable again, not sure how exactly
- MR applying to magical attacks would actually see this become a useful item
- For all that is sacred, please no Allies or anything like that. Mercenaries in T&T is fine as an expansion but leave it out of the core rules.
- A tweak to ASF. Why does it allow them to strike first AND re-roll hits? Striking first is already a huge buff to begin with

Zinch
18-11-2013, 07:38
8,5 edition, please!!

I've been playing since 5th edition and this is the most enjoyable, balanced and dinamic edition so far by a wide margin.

There are some adjustments that could be done (the ones everyone is talking about: scalating magic phase, uber spells, etc.), but the main rules are realy fine as they are.

@Kakapo42: you are not alone! I have just started a wood elf army and I'm fine with the book for a little longer (I'm afraid that a new book ends the "guerrilla" feeling of the army)

boli
18-11-2013, 12:08
- Disruption cancels out steadfast and steadfast only counts the second rank onwards, not the first


That single change will force a change to smaller units and you'll end up back in 7th with the movement shuffle again; I like the large units! Disruption giving like a -2 leadership to steadfast leadership checks much better.

havik110
18-11-2013, 14:08
For me the two issues are cost and rules.

The rise of Warmachine shows there is big demand for a Fantasy game that is fun, tactically interesting, with good rules and reasnoble cost. One of the best points of warmachine is that you can have your army, but by just changing one model (the caster) you can have completely different tactical consideration. Fantasy is so expensive to get into in comparison, and to experiment with different tactics you need to invest a great deal more.

With regards to rules I’m in the 9th edition camp. I think a complete overhaul would be good. I think GW has to change for the 20th Century. It’s just not viable to not have and updated rules for the game, and having such discrepancy between army books. It wouldn’t take much to do a yearly update, and by balancing the armies everyone would be much happier.

But I wouldn’t mind an 8.75; by that I mean keeping the rules basically the same, but with major tweaks. Steadfast could use some work, and a complete revamp of the magic system would be quite nice. Magic is one the big weaknesses imo. I know they like it chaotic, but its just too random. I'd rather it was a big part of the game consistently.

That’s my two cents.
GW is not a gaming company...they admit to this...

GW is a model company that sells their models by providing rules (at a cost) to play with said models...60 dollars for a box of witch elves should tell you all you need to know...

it is pretty much the same across their game lines, but there actually seems to be some balance in fantasy, where 40k is all eldar and tau right now...

StygianBeach
18-11-2013, 14:45
That single change will force a change to smaller units and you'll end up back in 7th with the movement shuffle again; I like the large units! Disruption giving like a -2 leadership to steadfast leadership checks much better.

I think you are exaggerating. Hordes will still operate the same. Chaff will still operate the same.

The only difference is that small flanking units would be tactically more valuable, and Ballistic skill based shooting will be more valuable as a counter to these.

boli
18-11-2013, 14:50
Larger units will become unuseable - afterall when 5 knights hitting the flank will break any unit why bother bringing 40 when you can bring 10; the idea of "less than elite units" will simply not be used.

Steadfast is there so you can use a larger number of lesser quality troops OR a smaller number of elite troops. having an easy way to negate it will drastically shift the balance of power towards elite units and cavalry.

Odin
18-11-2013, 14:55
I have only just started to get into Warhammer, in fact I'm still in the process of putting together an army and so do have yet to have my first game of it.

So, you haven't played Warhammer, but...


I think the mechanics themselves are adequate enough as they are.

... no offence, but what is that assessment based on?

StygianBeach
18-11-2013, 14:58
larger units will become unuseable - afterall when 5 knights hitting the flank will break any unit why bother bringing 40 when you can bring 10.

Disruption.p52 (small 8th rule book). Flanking unit requires 2 complete ranks of at least 5 models.

boli
18-11-2013, 15:02
OK I miss-counted; but my argument still stands: steadfast is the leveller which *allows* larger units. remove it or have it be negagted by somethign as simple as a flank or rear charge and balance of power will drop back to MSU cavalry lists.

mirloor
18-11-2013, 15:05
ye 8th is great, what i would change is:

- laser cannons
- delete uber spells all of them ( or introduce something like spell cost when wizard picks them or something) so they would not be avilable for armies lower then 2800 ( like some hero builds are unavilable now for smaller armies)
- FIX challenge system, refusing should mean HUGE drawback to unit -2 LD and no bsb rerolls, no inspiring presence. And attacker should choose who he want to challange or allow fighting lords to challange ALL characters in the unit. So there wont be spam of useless characters blocking someone who could slaughter whole unit for 3 turns. (its just silly), plus overkill should wound unit.

- it would be hard to implement but i think it would be nice if wider units for example 10 wide when fighting 5 wide unit should overlap their flanks (something like detachments in empire). It would be huge boost and it would be logical.
- But also i would change it so smaller unit kills models exatly in contact with them. So 5 wide unit fighting 10 wide could break their line. Automatic break for the wider unit. So both ways there would be advantages small pointy formations and wide overlapping formations.

Here is picture to depic what i mean:

181912


- cavlry should have impact hits against infantry on the turn they charge. Strength dependant on AS (more steel more trample damage)

StygianBeach
18-11-2013, 15:13
OK I miss-counted; but my argument still stands: steadfast is the leveller which *allows* larger units. remove it or have it be negagted by somethign as simple as a flank or rear charge and balance of power will drop back to MSU cavalry lists.

I wish Flanks charges were simple for me... I guess I just struggle to get 10 cavalry into the flank of big units.

Usually the only units I manage to get into the Flanks are individual Characters or monsters.

Odin
18-11-2013, 15:36
ye 8th is great, what i would change is:

- laser cannons
- delete uber spells all of them ( or introduce something like spell cost when wizard picks them or something) so they would not be avilable for armies lower then 2800 ( like some hero builds are unavilable now for smaller armies)
- FIX challenge system, refusing should mean HUGE drawback to unit -2 LD and no bsb rerolls, no inspiring presence. And attacker should choose who he want to challange or allow fighting lords to challange ALL characters in the unit. So there wont be spam of useless characters blocking someone who could slaughter whole unit for 3 turns. (its just silly), plus overkill should wound unit.

- it would be hard to implement but i think it would be nice if wider units for example 10 wide when fighting 5 wide unit should overlap their flanks (something like detachments in empire). It would be huge boost and it would be logical.
- But also i would change it so smaller unit kills models exatly in contact with them. So 5 wide unit fighting 10 wide could break their line. Automatic break for the wider unit. So both ways there would be advantages small pointy formations and wide overlapping formations.

Here is picture to depic what i mean:

181912


- cavlry should have impact hits against infantry on the turn they charge. Strength dependant on AS (more steel more trample damage)

Are epic spells a problem at lower levels? Generally I find they're much weaker in small battles as you don't get the epic units. Dwellers will cause carnage on a 50-man horde, but won't do the same points of damage to a 20-man unit. Plus they are essential to balance out hordes and deathstars.

I agree with cavalry impacts. My suggestion would be that the steeds simply hit automatically in the turn they charge.

I definitely agree that challenges need reworking. They were intended as a way of creating epic fights between heroes, instead they're used to prevent heroes from fighting properly, and are one of the reasons that combat lords are so out of favour.

Odin
18-11-2013, 15:37
ye 8th is great, what i would change is:

- laser cannons
- delete uber spells all of them ( or introduce something like spell cost when wizard picks them or something) so they would not be avilable for armies lower then 2800 ( like some hero builds are unavilable now for smaller armies)
- FIX challenge system, refusing should mean HUGE drawback to unit -2 LD and no bsb rerolls, no inspiring presence. And attacker should choose who he want to challange or allow fighting lords to challange ALL characters in the unit. So there wont be spam of useless characters blocking someone who could slaughter whole unit for 3 turns. (its just silly), plus overkill should wound unit.

- it would be hard to implement but i think it would be nice if wider units for example 10 wide when fighting 5 wide unit should overlap their flanks (something like detachments in empire). It would be huge boost and it would be logical.
- But also i would change it so smaller unit kills models exatly in contact with them. So 5 wide unit fighting 10 wide could break their line. Automatic break for the wider unit. So both ways there would be advantages small pointy formations and wide overlapping formations.

Here is picture to depic what i mean:

181912


- cavlry should have impact hits against infantry on the turn they charge. Strength dependant on AS (more steel more trample damage)

Are epic spells a problem at lower levels? Generally I find they're much weaker in small battles as you don't get the epic units. Dwellers will cause carnage on a 50-man horde, but won't do the same points of damage to a 20-man unit. Plus they are essential to balance out hordes and deathstars.

I agree with cavalry impacts. My suggestion would be that the steeds simply hit automatically in the turn they charge.

I definitely agree that challenges need reworking. They were intended as a way of creating epic fights between heroes, instead they're used to prevent heroes from fighting properly, and are one of the reasons that combat lords are so out of favour.

Charistoph
18-11-2013, 16:02
OK I miss-counted; but my argument still stands: steadfast is the leveller which *allows* larger units. remove it or have it be negagted by somethign as simple as a flank or rear charge and balance of power will drop back to MSU cavalry lists.

I wouldn't call 10 Cavalry models or 6 MC models to be MSU... They get way too expensive to operate that way outside of Bretonnia.

But there are still ways around that. Make it Steadfast Disruption based more on Rank differences between the sides involved. If they are Flanking, they gain 1-2 Ranks for purposes of determining Steadfast, for Rear, they gain 2-4, but only if they are already engaged on one side, but only if they qualify for Disruption. No matter how much you outnumber one force, being surrounded should still cause discipline issues.

Grammaticus Bane
18-11-2013, 16:27
For me the two issues are cost and rules.

The rise of Warmachine shows there is big demand for a Fantasy game that is fun, tactically interesting, with good rules and reasonable cost. One of the best points of Warmachine is that you can have your army, but by just changing one model (the caster) you can have completely different tactical consideration. Fantasy is so expensive to get into in comparison, and to experiment with different tactics you need to invest a great deal more.

While I agree with your tactics comment, WMH really is no cheaper than WFB. Yes, it scales easier to very small games, but to run 2-3 50pt lists...yeah. It costs a pretty penny.

What WFB needs is true scalability. I know people will regularly talk about 750pt games, but having played a few in both WFB and 40k, 40k's were much better games at that point level. I think incorporating something like the Regiment Of Reknown rules into the next edition of Fantasy would really help get small, playable games together. And maybe attract a new player base with smaller games as intros.

Knifeparty
18-11-2013, 16:31
8th ed. Is the best edition of the game I have played yet, and by far the most balanced. I would hate to see a massive change to the rules set, I love playing with massive armies.

Changes that I would like to see would be:

Magic resistance add +1 to dispel attempts made against the targeted unit or perhaps -1 to casting rolls when targeting the unit.

You can always stomp units on smaller bases than you.

Spears do impact hits to cavalry when charged.

I'd like to see multiple types of ranked formations other than just horde that provide different bonuses and drawbacks.

Change line of sight rules back to how they used to be. True line of sight just doesn't work for warhammer.

yabbadabba
18-11-2013, 16:44
So, you haven't played Warhammer, but...

... no offence, but what is that assessment based on? Let's be honest, the same assessment almost every rumour thread has that comments about the rules and stat lines fo units/armies/games without playtesting first.

mirloor
18-11-2013, 20:08
ye 8th is great, what i would change is:

- laser cannons
- delete uber spells all of them ( or introduce something like spell cost when wizard picks them or something) so they would not be avilable for armies lower then 2800 ( like some hero builds are unavilable now for smaller armies)
- FIX challenge system, refusing should mean HUGE drawback to unit -2 LD and no bsb rerolls, no inspiring presence. And attacker should choose who he want to challange or allow fighting lords to challange ALL characters in the unit. So there wont be spam of useless characters blocking someone who could slaughter whole unit for 3 turns. (its just silly), plus overkill should wound unit.

- it would be hard to implement but i think it would be nice if wider units for example 10 wide when fighting 5 wide unit should overlap their flanks (something like detachments in empire). It would be huge boost and it would be logical.
- But also i would change it so smaller unit kills models exatly in contact with them. So 5 wide unit fighting 10 wide could break their line. Automatic break for the wider unit. So both ways there would be advantages small pointy formations and wide overlapping formations.

Here is picture to depic what i mean:

Attachment 181912 (http://www.warseer.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=181912)


- cavlry should have impact hits against infantry on the turn they charge. Strength dependant on AS (more steel more trample damage)

Are epic spells a problem at lower levels? Generally I find they're much weaker in small battles as you don't get the epic units. Dwellers will cause carnage on a 50-man horde, but won't do the same points of damage to a 20-man unit. Plus they are essential to balance out hordes and deathstars.

I agree with cavalry impacts. My suggestion would be that the steeds simply hit automatically in the turn they charge.

I definitely agree that challenges need reworking. They were intended as a way of creating epic fights between heroes, instead they're used to prevent heroes from fighting properly, and are one of the reasons that combat lords are so out of favour.


In my experience bigger the game, more balanced all armies are. Thanks to new magic system which i think is great upgrade from 7ed. We have limited magic power no matter how many wizards we have. But mega spells are still a problem. Howether they stop being game breakers if army is big enough. So i think this little change would be enough to fix magic problems. Limit power of spells you can take to army size. On 1600 game purple sun on lord mage is kinda silly. But on 3000 it is not as broken and would be ok. Same as killer lord on dragon would be hardcore on 1600 but you can pick one only on much bigger games. Its a tiny cosmetic change but i think would fix the problem.

Another thing is Irresistible Force, I think two 1 's should cause miscast no matter what is on other dices. Simply spell went wrong even it is two 1's and four 6's. Its just a miscast. This would help with spell game breakers too.

Fix challange system, and sniping with cannons and game is almost perfect.

Ah and one more thing that always annoyed me. Unit should be able to charge leaving character behind if he do not wants to, or wants to charge different target. This rule is annoying.

Kahadras
18-11-2013, 20:20
I'm personaly hoping they ditch stomp and take a serious look at monsterous infantry/cavalry in the next edition.

Kakapo42
18-11-2013, 21:35
So, you haven't played Warhammer, but...



... no offence, but what is that assessment based on?

Reading the rulebook. What I have seen seems to make sense on paper. I will not lie, I have not seen it put into practice, but so far I like what I read.

Ludaman
18-11-2013, 21:40
Larger units will become unuseable - afterall when 5 knights hitting the flank will break any unit why bother bringing 40 when you can bring 10; the idea of "less than elite units" will simply not be used.

Steadfast is there so you can use a larger number of lesser quality troops OR a smaller number of elite troops. having an easy way to negate it will drastically shift the balance of power towards elite units and cavalry.

I strongly disagree, with BSBs making elite Death-Stars packed with characters nearly un-killable and un-moveable you can be playing a 2500 point game and have 1800 points sitting in one giant block surrounded by a couple units of chaf. Some of the best tournament winning lists look like this, and it's not a bad strategy. Allowing disruption to negate steadfast would actually force a general to protect their flanks, you'd still see big units of cheap troops, as 50 goblins would still be a great way to hold up an elite unit like chaos warriors. However it would effectively put an end to some of the deathstars you see. (Although the next edition would have to either remove or increase the cost of the crown of command substantially). Hordes wouldn't disappear, they'd just need support to protect their flanks.

In my opinion (and in house-rules games at home where we use disruption this way) it would lead to more tactical play, and more diverse armies. Although if you enjoy winning the game in the "pen and paper army-building phase" rather than by using deployment, movement, and tactics you might not like it. However if you really feel like allowing disruption to cancel steadfast would ruin the game, I suggest you play test it with a close friend over a few games. You'd be surprised to find how it effects the game for the better I think.

Here's just a few examples:

1. Shooting units like archers have real value again. Taking out those 3 boar boys that make the opposing player's unit of 12 a flanking force is hugely important!

2. Cavalry can actually do what they were intended to do, use their speed and outflank the enemy, possibly breaking a larger unit of infantry on the flank, and making combo charges devastating.

3. There's more to think of when list building other than wound output and survivability. If you put all your eggs in one basket combo charges will wreck your basket. Also by spreading out your points "uber spells" become less important and game-changing.

Anyway, I again recommend you try it out, it's worked wonders on making 8th edition more fun and tactical for myself and my friends, but there's a good chance we're just not beardy enough to wreck the game in the opposite direction :)

NurglesRot
18-11-2013, 21:49
Larger units will become unuseable - afterall when 5 knights hitting the flank will break any unit why bother bringing 40 when you can bring 10; the idea of "less than elite units" will simply not be used.

I don't see how? It would mean that your 1500 point deathstar unit can't just march up the centre ignoring everything around it because they can LD10 everything off whilst being virtually indestructible.

It would open a whole new level of gameplay and tactics involved in trying to get units to flank and counter-flank. I will be the first to say that I think Steadfast is a great rule - and fixed one of the major issues with 7th edition when ranked units broke and fled from a stiff breeze, but it needs some tweaking.

And you need a unit with at least 2 ranks to disrupt, so you won't have a single monster or lone model breaking steadfast. If you happen to out-move your opponent and get ranked infantry into their flanks you should be rewarded - and likewise the opponent punished.



...snip...


This whole post echoes my thoughts exactly ;)

yabbadabba
18-11-2013, 22:09
Flank and/or rear charges should not negate Steadfast. Impact it yes, negate it no.

NurglesRot
18-11-2013, 22:26
Like I said, I think it's a great rule but it could use some tweaking.

Perhaps a flat out negation is too extreme, I think someone suggested -2 LD which would be a bonus I guess but still allows a decent chance to stick around - it would benefit some armies more than others though which might skew the balance. Rules writing is a tricky business.

yabbadabba
18-11-2013, 22:28
If you want to tie it into tactics, then make Steadfast modifiable by the flank and rear charge bonuses only. Now you have a need to manouveur but the penalty is not as harsh.

mypantsarefree3
18-11-2013, 23:41
I don't think flank/rear charges negating steadfast is harsh. I think if having a loooong bus of gobbos makes you steadfast forever, then that increased likelihood of being flanked and losing that ability is a calculated risk.

I dunno, I find steadfast extremely powerful and usually for very little points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Athlan na Dyr
18-11-2013, 23:55
If you want to tie it into tactics, then make Steadfast modifiable by the flank and rear charge bonuses only. Now you have a need to manouveur but the penalty is not as harsh.

Surely having flanks/ rear chargers multiply their ranks for the purposes of Steadfast and counting aggregate ranks in a combat for the purposes of Steadfast would be a more elegant solution? That way the stuff people are worried about (100 goblins be automatically chased off by 10 cavalry dudes) isn't an issue, and it would help some of the flaws of the current system, including when one unit of 6 ranks is larger than 2 units of 5 ranks each, or when it is preferable to be rear charged due to the presence of a BSB or other Hero in the front rank of the unit.

It also reduces the occurrence of the 'magic number' syndrome, where a unit of ten is far, far more useful than a unit of 9, and a unit of 15 is not much more useful than a unit of 10

Odin
18-11-2013, 23:57
If you want to tie it into tactics, then make Steadfast modifiable by the flank and rear charge bonuses only. Now you have a need to manouveur but the penalty is not as harsh.

Yup, that's our houserule.

Maltor
19-11-2013, 06:14
We use the same flank/rear bonuses are counted against steadfast. If hit in both flanks the penalty is -2 (1 for each flank). It seems to work well as a reward. Also, we have disruption disallow using Inspiring Precense to simulate the confusion caused by being disrupted.

valle
19-11-2013, 08:55
There are plenty of other good reliable posters out there, everyone starts somewhere, one of my own first rumours was the plastic rat ogres, I was laughed at (even though I had the sprues ;) ) and it pains me to see people bashing rumour mongrels who are usually doing it for no other reason than to spread a little excitement about a hobby they love.





My problem with other rumour mongers are the fact that none of them have had a recognizeable avatar... When i look through a rumour thread I quickly scroll down to a red cross or a pie to get to the juicy stuff. So by all means, step up new rumour mongers! But have an avatar will you? ;)

Athelassan
19-11-2013, 11:18
Unpopular opinion alert.

I have a love/hate relationship with 8th edition. I enjoyed 4th and 5th with their fun and humour and quirkiness (I never played 3rd edition; I think I would have liked the "feel" of it even more, but the mechanics look terrifying). 8th edition seems to have been making an attempt to get back some of that after two rather prosaic editions, and I am very much in favour of that. Storm of Magic and the like should be right up my street.

But it has features that bug the hell out of me far more than any earlier edition. While I like the idea of armies having access to more "fun stuff", the execution at times makes me roll my eyes. There's been a loss of focus in the army centrepiece department. But that's more of a minor gripe; my real problem is that I find the game over-randomised compared to earlier editions. It seems to me at times that the game has been reduced to an exercise in dice rolling with the only real input from the players being in the army selection phase. If I just want to roll dice I might as well play craps; then at least I'd stand a chance of winning some money rather than just paying it hand over fist.

I'm not a tournament player so I don't really care about that side of things, and to be honest I don't think a game this complex is ever going to be balanced enough to satisfy that side of the hobby. I agree with Daniel36 all those months ago that I'd like to see players encouraged to take more of the initiative in creating their own gaming experience. There's an odd paradox with 8th edition: it should be the most fun edition for at least ten years and possibly ever, but I find it the least fun of any Warhammer edition to date to play. There's a wall of dice between me and my fun.

So whatever it is I want from the next edition, I don't think I'm going to get it. I think the genie's out of the bottle now and barring a complete (and I mean complete) rules overhaul at a fundamental level the game is never again going to be what I want it to be. Which is fine, I guess. I long ago accepted that the gaming side of things wasn't really "for" me any more. I'll remain a collector and hobbyist (although some of the recent developments in that direction aren't conducive to my enjoyment either, but that's a different kettle of fish) It does frustrate me though that, because I retain an interest in the background, I have to buy these annoyingly expensive rulebooks to find out what's going on in the world.

Odin
19-11-2013, 11:27
Unpopular opinion alert.

I have a love/hate relationship with 8th edition. I enjoyed 4th and 5th with their fun and humour and quirkiness (I never played 3rd edition; I think I would have liked the "feel" of it even more, but the mechanics look terrifying). 8th edition seems to have been making an attempt to get back some of that after two rather prosaic editions, and I am very much in favour of that. Storm of Magic and the like should be right up my street.

But it has features that bug the hell out of me far more than any earlier edition. While I like the idea of armies having access to more "fun stuff", the execution at times makes me roll my eyes. There's been a loss of focus in the army centrepiece department. But that's more of a minor gripe; my real problem is that I find the game over-randomised compared to earlier editions. It seems to me at times that the game has been reduced to an exercise in dice rolling with the only real input from the players being in the army selection phase. If I just want to roll dice I might as well play craps; then at least I'd stand a chance of winning some money rather than just paying it hand over fist.

I'm not a tournament player so I don't really care about that side of things, and to be honest I don't think a game this complex is ever going to be balanced enough to satisfy that side of the hobby. I agree with Daniel36 all those months ago that I'd like to see players encouraged to take more of the initiative in creating their own gaming experience. There's an odd paradox with 8th edition: it should be the most fun edition for at least ten years and possibly ever, but I find it the least fun of any Warhammer edition to date to play. There's a wall of dice between me and my fun.


Charge ranges are more random... but what else is? You know that more dice in close combat makes things less rather than more random, right?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Lord Solar Plexus
19-11-2013, 14:04
I don't see how? It would mean that your 1500 point deathstar unit can't just march up the centre ignoring everything around it because they can LD10 everything off whilst being virtually indestructible.


Precisely, and that is the problem. If such a huge Deathstar must be cautious, and your suggestion affects everyone in relation, normal units like your run-of-the-mill 50 Halberdiers or Stormvermin will be useless.

As a matter of fact, Deathstars hardly depend on steadfast; changing the latter does not affect them. They usually don't lose. Ld 10 is a different matter as well.



It would open a whole new level of gameplay and tactics involved in trying to get units to flank and counter-flank.


That is already the name of the game. Last game against Brets, I managed a flank charge on his Knight bus with my Spearmen. Against Templeguard, they also went into the flank, with something else into the front. It's impossible to just charge frontally, it wouldn't change a thing.

Athelassan
19-11-2013, 16:04
Charge ranges are more random... but what else is? You know that more dice in close combat makes things less rather than more random, right?

Artillery is the other one: things used to be guess range and are now randomised. They seem like small changes but charges (in particular) and guess range (for some armies) were some of the elements of the game requiring greatest precision and judgment. As for more dice in combat, yeah, I appreciate that makes things less random but it increases the emphasis on list-building rather than actual gameplay. The switch to striking in Initiative order just adds to the effect. Maybe randomisation isn't the right criticism - although I do resent it in charge movement particularly. I just sometimes stare at the tabletop and wonder what effect I'm actually having.

StygianBeach
19-11-2013, 16:17
Precisely, and that is the problem. If such a huge Deathstar must be cautious, and your suggestion affects everyone in relation, normal units like your run-of-the-mill 50 Halberdiers or Stormvermin will be useless.


They can still Horde up and swift reform though.

Fear Ghoul
19-11-2013, 16:18
Speaking of cavalry impact hits, I would rather they went completely in the opposite direction and removed normal cavalry attacks altogether. Real horses don't tend to throw themselves into a body of humans, because they are almost as afraid of injury as we are, and in-game it slows cavalry combats down drastically. Instead give cavalry an additional +1 to combat resolution when charging, and keep mount attacks for monsters or enhanced horses.

ShinMusashi44
19-11-2013, 16:21
Really tired of a new edition coming out before all the books are updated for the present edition. It's one on the main reasons I stopped playing. Same thing with 40k.

Captain Collius
19-11-2013, 17:04
Really tired of a new edition coming out before all the books are updated for the present edition. It's one on the main reasons I stopped playing. Same thing with 40k.

well it looks like it will only be 3 books awaiting updates when 9th comes out and of those 3 1 is having very little trouble in 8th (Skaven.) 1 is functional despite being 2 editions old (Brettonians.) The third book is utter poo but what can you do. (beastmen.)

yabbadabba
19-11-2013, 19:06
Artillery is the other one: things used to be guess range and randomise and are now just randomised. Edited that for you

They seem like small changes but charges (in particular) and guess range (for some armies) were some of the elements of the game requiring greatest precision and judgment.Not really, just experience. Guessing the range was hardly an effort once you had played a few games and got the basic feel for distance on the tabletop.

As for more dice in combat, yeah, I appreciate that makes things less random but it increases the emphasis on list-building rather than actual gameplay. List building has been emphasised for the past 4 editions at least.

I just sometimes stare at the tabletop and wonder what effect I'm actually having. Maybe that's where you need to develop your own skills and experiences in the game?

mypantsarefree3
19-11-2013, 19:30
I hope the randomness is cut as well. It wont, but a man can hope. I started at the beginning of 6th when fantasy was considered a tactical game even by people who didnt play the game but still knew it by reputation in the wider gaming community.. Some will argue against this but I've played with many groups in many areas and this was always the thought.

For example, I liked that putting more points into magic could give me a higher return in magic in a consistent way that correlated to the amount I spent. A lvl 3 and above gave me 2 PD, a lvl 2 and below would add 1 to the pile. Instead of fixing armies that could abuse this they threw the baby out with the bath water and thought it would be fun to see if the points spent in magic offense/defense each turn were well spent in a random way. Not much fun to see your wizard doing nothing with his large price tag all due to bad luck of the magic winds, especially when your opponent rolls well with a much weaker/cheaper mage and just 6-dices power spells through. Not tactical.

Making charges random is the main complaint I hear from older players as to why the game is less tactical, and many players' reason for quitting. Failing what should be a sure charge due to dice isn't a tactical game. I've heard all the arguments in favor of randomness and forming strategies with this in mind, but I don't buy this as being as smart of a game anymore...and I cringe at the thought of what another edition will bring. Heck, even 40k found a way to "lighten" the rules further than the previous edition, and many didnt think that was possible.

I dont want to grumble anymore but I and many got into this game when it had a worthy reputation of being a thinking game. Now I feel the rules are moving away from this. It's like you buy tickets to your favorite rock concert and partway through they decide they'd rather play Kenny G. and they say you have to suck it up or get out, and you also can't have your $$$ back. I feel like I'm at the concert trying to convince myself the lyrical changes to Kenny G. are really for the best because otherwise I spent all this money on Kenny G. and I'll feel very silly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
19-11-2013, 20:32
... I liked that putting more points into magic could give me a higher return in magic in a consistent way that correlated to the amount I spent. A lvl 3 and above gave me 2 PD, a lvl 2 and below would add 1 to the pile. Instead of fixing armies that could abuse this they threw the baby out with the bath water and thought it would be fun to see if the points spent in magic offense/defense each turn were well spent in a random way. Not much fun to see your wizard doing nothing with his large price tag all due to bad luck of the magic winds, especially when your opponent rolls well with a much weaker/cheaper mage and just 6-dices power spells through. Not tactical.

Making charges random is the main complaint I hear from older players as to why the game is less tactical, and many players' reason for quitting. Failing what should be a sure charge due to dice isn't a tactical game. I've heard all the arguments in favor of randomness and forming strategies with this in mind, but I don't buy this as being as smart of a game anymore...and I cringe at the thought of what another edition will bring.

While I do agree with you that the randomness of magic is perhaps overdone, I absolutely disagree with you on charge ranges.

With random charge ranges came premeasuring. Now you don't have to be a *********** carpenter to play this game at a high level. Measuring distances means you can know exactly what the likelihood of successful charge is going to be. You know exactly how much risk you're exposing yourself to. You know exactly how far the enemy has to move to be in range of those nasty spells or ranged weapons.

If you're not taking full advantage of premeasuring then I can see how you might believe this to be a less tactical game. But when taken together, the randomness and premeasuring added complexity to this game that did not exist before.

bigbiggles
19-11-2013, 22:52
And you forgot wood elves

bigbiggles
19-11-2013, 22:58
I found with random charges I think a lot more about if I should charge or not, and what happens if I fail. Now infantry seem to charge a little too fast, but that is a minor detail.

Eyeballing 8, 10, 12, and 14 inches was never really "tactics" anyway

dalezzz
19-11-2013, 23:47
In a world of modular boards , the old "guessing" ranges is a bit pointless

Athelassan
20-11-2013, 00:02
Maybe that's where you need to develop your own skills and experiences in the game?
But I have no interest in doing so under this ruleset. I've never been a great player but under previous editions I could at least see cause and effect going on. There were times I screwed up and I knew what I'd done wrong; there were times I played out of my skin and gave my opponent a thrashing; there were times the dice let me down or gave me a boost and in all cases I could at least identify what was going on. With 8th edition I often feel like if I wandered away from the table and was replaced by a dice-bot it would make pretty much zero impact on the result. I can no longer tell when I've played well or badly and I feel so detached from what's going on I care even less if I win or lose than I used to anyway. Frankly, the game bores me and I don't think it would bore me less if I were any better at it.

List building has been emphasised for the past 4 editions at least.
Under 4th and 5th edition there was an element of it but everyone had access to pretty much the same cheese so either you both dialled it up to eleven or you both agreed (whether tacitly or otherwise) not to take the mickey. It was the early days of internet communities, too, so things didn't get picked over to the same extent. I noticed list-building becoming a feature from 6th edition onwards, but in 8th it seems like it's the core element of the game. It's all about synergy and bonus-stacking and although every army has a hundred units only three of them are any good. I know some people find that sort of thing interesting but really I couldn't care less and haven't for a long time. The part of the game I have always enjoyed was the game and I just don't any more.

IcedCrow
20-11-2013, 00:53
In a world of modular boards , the old "guessing" ranges is a bit pointless

Guess ranging was never really much of a skill. It was more a celebration of having decent depth perception. Plus there were a good half dozen ways to "guess" ranges without guessing, and yep the modular boards killed it off since it gridified the table for you. To me, the little plastic men are the ones firing the machines, not you the player anyway.

As to list building, 8th edition is neither more nor less about list building. The rest is personal taste. I can disagree heavily about the dice-bot analogy because really the dice are the same in this edition as the last edition. The thing that is really different this edition is that there is more random which means players have to have backup plans, whereas in previous editions you knew exactly how the game was going to go because everything was absolute.

From a pure gaming standpoint, warhammer has really always to me failed. It is a hobby with a game in the background. Making the game the foremost activity always seems to be disappointing when it comes to this. There are stronger games out there if the game is your primary motivator.

dalezzz
20-11-2013, 00:57
It seems to be one of the big reasons people have actually quit playing , rather than just a disliked thing, don't understand the problem myself

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
20-11-2013, 07:22
But I have no interest in doing so under this ruleset. I've never been a great player but under previous editions I could at least see cause and effect going on. There were times I screwed up and I knew what I'd done wrong; there were times I played out of my skin and gave my opponent a thrashing; there were times the dice let me down or gave me a boost and in all cases I could at least identify what was going on. With 8th edition I often feel like if I wandered away from the table and was replaced by a dice-bot it would make pretty much zero impact on the result. I can no longer tell when I've played well or badly and I feel so detached from what's going on I care even less if I win or lose than I used to anyway. Frankly, the game bores me and I don't think it would bore me less if I were any better at it.

Under 4th and 5th edition there was an element of it but everyone had access to pretty much the same cheese so either you both dialled it up to eleven or you both agreed (whether tacitly or otherwise) not to take the mickey. It was the early days of internet communities, too, so things didn't get picked over to the same extent. I noticed list-building becoming a feature from 6th edition onwards, but in 8th it seems like it's the core element of the game. It's all about synergy and bonus-stacking and although every army has a hundred units only three of them are any good. I know some people find that sort of thing interesting but really I couldn't care less and haven't for a long time. The part of the game I have always enjoyed was the game and I just don't any more.

So basically what you're saying is that you never bothered to learn how to play under the new rules, were never even very good under the old rules, and that your opinion on this matter is essentially meaningless and irrelevant.


Seriously, saying you "don't see cause-and-effect" in warhammer is like saying the randomness in poker precludes strategy. Randomness does not eliminate strategy. All random charge ranges removed was the ******** gamesmanship that came with a game where no premeasuring was allowed. Do you honestly think that being able to eyeball distances ought to be a mandatory skill for competitive warhammer play? We're hobbyists, not *********** carpenters.

Also, if you think this game has gotten less complicated rather than more then you're looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses. Back in 5th I ran a chaos army that had 19 models, one of which was a 900-point level 3 necromancer khorne lord on a dragon, with 5 WS bazillion attacks that frenzy doubled to 10. Every army ran the "hero who explodes when he dies." In 7th cavalry dominated because unless you were an idiot you could ALWAYS guarantee that you got the charge against infantry...so long as you could eyeball 9-16" with perfect precision. People did ******** like measuring the length of their arm then premeasuring by "reaching for their dice," or some such ********.

This stuff always existed, you just weren't playing in an environment where you noticed it. Now you're exposed to all the ******** gamesmanship of competitive play by virtue of the internet, and you've heaped all the blame for it at the door of 8th edition.

Ludaman
20-11-2013, 09:41
So basically what you're saying is that you never bothered to learn how to play under the new rules, were never even very good under the old rules, and that your opinion on this matter is essentially meaningless and irrelevant.


Seriously, saying you "don't see cause-and-effect" in warhammer is like saying the randomness in poker precludes strategy. Randomness does not eliminate strategy. All random charge ranges removed was the ******** gamesmanship that came with a game where no premeasuring was allowed. Do you honestly think that being able to eyeball distances ought to be a mandatory skill for competitive warhammer play? We're hobbyists, not *********** carpenters.

Also, if you think this game has gotten less complicated rather than more then you're looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses. Back in 5th I ran a chaos army that had 19 models, one of which was a 900-point level 3 necromancer khorne lord on a dragon, with 5 WS bazillion attacks that frenzy doubled to 10. Every army ran the "hero who explodes when he dies." In 7th cavalry dominated because unless you were an idiot you could ALWAYS guarantee that you got the charge against infantry...so long as you could eyeball 9-16" with perfect precision. People did ******** like measuring the length of their arm then premeasuring by "reaching for their dice," or some such ********.

This stuff always existed, you just weren't playing in an environment where you noticed it. Now you're exposed to all the ******** gamesmanship of competitive play by virtue of the internet, and you've heaped all the blame for it at the door of 8th edition.

I give this post **** out of ***** stars for the use of stars.

But seriously, why so angry? Your opinion as a faceless internet keyboard monkey is no more relevant than his, why get offended by his opinions and post a bunch of ****? Now if you said up front "my name is Steve, I'm a 25 time grand tournament champion and I like 8th better than 6th, it might mean something, but still... Why all the **** man? I don't need this **** I'm out...

Oh and to the poster you complained about, try kings of war, it's like warhammer 6th edition but with tighter rules, you'll have fun.

Athelassan
20-11-2013, 14:21
So basically what you're saying is that you never bothered to learn how to play under the new rules, were never even very good under the old rules, and that your opinion on this matter is essentially meaningless and irrelevant.
Firstly, thank you for your insults and condescension. Secondly, no, that's not what I said, but good work on making the effort to interpret it that way.

Frankly, I'm quite glad I never played with your group. Or in tournaments, for that matter. And I don't see why judging distances is an unreasonable thing to expect people to do. It's just another skill to bring to the table, just as knowing whether how a unit with Fear interacts with one with Stubborn, or how the Thunderbutt ability stacks with Dreadbeard. Except that being able to judge distance is probably slightly more useful in everyday life.

And your confessional about "I used to be a cheesemonger" in 5th edition doesn't inspire me with confidence either.



Oh and to the poster you complained about, try kings of war, it's like warhammer 6th edition but with tighter rules, you'll have fun.
Thank you for an actually constructive remark.

Zinch
20-11-2013, 15:09
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath was too much visceral in his/her response, but I think he or she is right in a lot of things.

8th edition is not a less tactical nor less "intelectual" game than the former editions. In fact it is a lot deeper in a lot of circumstances.

For example, the charge distance that is being mentioned in every post: the random charge distance makes the game a LOT more deep and tactical dependant, not the other way around. Before, you just charged and if you were any good judging distances, reached combat and that was all. Now, before you even declare any charge, you have to plan your movements just in case you fail that charge. That is a lot deeper and more tactical. Sometimes is fustrating to fail that charge, but taking into account that charges (front to front) are not even a 10% as important as in 7th edition that situation is a minor handicap to the changes introduced (premeasuring every time among them) that I think are very positive.

Grammaticus Bane
20-11-2013, 15:23
I love me some 8th ed, and I have been playing since the beginning of 5th.

And I do remember the Khorne Lord on a Dragon with 20 attacks and etc. While I do wish characters had more options than they do now (still have my old box of Warhammer Magic in my garage), I like the direction the game is going.

What do I want to see? Some way to strip Steadfast easier (whether that is a flank/rear multiplies their ranks for purposes of removing Steadfast or whatever GW thinks is reasonable), a tone-down of some of the overkill magic (looking at you, Pit of Shades, Dwellers Below, and Dreaded 13th), and, honestly, maybe a way to keep characters alive a hint longer without having to spend all your points on defense.

I play VC mainly. I have this wonderfully powerful, scary character that is a blender in combat. But I spend a ton of points just trying to keep him alive, because while shooting won't really bug him in his unit, get charged by a chimera, all attacks on the character, make 7 saves. Just a bit disappointing. Same reason people almost never run a BSB with a banner. You do, he dies the moment he sees combat.

Random thoughts. I honestly have liked this edition the best since I first began playing back in early 5th. I like random charges. I feel like it is now a gamble a lot of times on the charge, but using tactics and statistics, you can make reasonable judgments on if you can make the charge or not.

Random magic is a bit annoying, but I understand it in the current state of the magic phase. If we tone down the unit kill spells, but keep magic worthwhile, I can see it really work nicely. Almost wouldn't mind the system going to something closer to the 40k system, if only because I like the idea that you don't need to take magic to have a chance at stopping your opponent.

Also, Magic Resistance should be worth something again. And no spell/power should allow no save of any kind. That is what a Ward is for.

yabbadabba
20-11-2013, 15:49
But I have no interest in doing so under this ruleset.
I've never been a great player but under previous editions I could at least see cause and effect going on. There were times I screwed up and I knew what I'd done wrong; there were times I played out of my skin and gave my opponent a thrashing; there were times the dice let me down or gave me a boost and in all cases I could at least identify what was going on. With 8th edition I often feel like if I wandered away from the table and was replaced by a dice-bot it would make pretty much zero impact on the result. I can no longer tell when I've played well or badly and I feel so detached from what's going on I care even less if I win or lose than I used to anyway. Frankly, the game bores me and I don't think it would bore me less if I were any better at it. I appreciate how you feel but I do not recognise this game you are playing. For me in 6th and 7th Eds I felt like if I turned up with the wrong army list, I might as well have just quit and not bothered getting my toys out. There was no skill in that.

Under 4th and 5th edition there was an element of it but everyone had access to pretty much the same cheese so either you both dialled it up to eleven or you both agreed (whether tacitly or otherwise) not to take the mickey. NOt really, even in 4th and 5th Eds, the so called Hero-Hammers, the armies were not balanced in their cheese at all. Again, it wasn't down to the set up, or your tactics on the day, if you didn't have the right hero combination you knew you were going to suffer. These were the days when a 7 model Chaos army was competitive!

It was the early days of internet communities, too, so things didn't get picked over to the same extent. I noticed list-building becoming a feature from 6th edition onwards, but in 8th it seems like it's the core element of the game. It's all about synergy and bonus-stacking and although every army has a hundred units only three of them are any good. I know some people find that sort of thing interesting but really I couldn't care less and haven't for a long time. The part of the game I have always enjoyed was the game and I just don't any more. It seems to me that you are being affected more by how people choose to play, than what the rules can do for you. Fine if that means you do not want to play this version then so be it, but I just do not recognise what you are describing and this should tell you that there is more than one way to play this game effectively.

IcedCrow
20-11-2013, 18:41
These were the days when a 7 model Chaos army was competitive!

I played that army in Chicago & Baltimore in the 90s ;)

And also judging distances is not a skill IMO. It is an exercise in depth perception. I can guess a range between 0 and 120" with 99% accuracy. That doesn't mean I am skilled. I am quite frankly glad guessing is gone, because I never missed barring a misfire result.

That 8th is not everyone's cup of tea cannot be argued. I quit the game for 3 years because of 7th edition. I'm definitely not going to argue if someone likes a ruleset or not or if they are "wrong" for doing so because that is obviously not possible to do... however...

That its less tactical and brain dead compared to the other editions is blatantly false.

RecklessAbandon
20-11-2013, 19:26
I met a few guys when 8th came out (I had just got back into the game after a couple of year absence) who quit WHFB when 8th came out and switched over the 40K. Guess what they did when 40K 6th ed came out?

Fact is some people are just kind of crotchety and if you change something they like, they have a little temper tantrum for a bit but eventually they calm down. These guys will be back playing 40K when 9th WHFB comes out and they'll be back playing WHFB when 40K 7th comes out.

logan054
20-11-2013, 19:42
Actually MR is pretty nails as it is. The only problem with it is that it doesn't do anything to spells that allow no saves, so maybe it can always give a minimum 6+ ward save vs hostile spells.

I was always more a fan of the old system of MR adding additional free dispel dice, problem with the current system is it has no effect on magic that doesn't cause wounds, these spells can be just as gaming changing, if not more than a direct damage spell.


- laser cannons

I agree, cannons should be based on the crews BS, it would be nice if they only did D3 wounds, might give monsters more a chance of getting across the board.


- delete uber spells all of them

I agree, I don't think spells like dwellers really add anything constructive to the game, I would also love to see the BRB lores being more on a equal power level, the lore of light attribute changed, I don't think you should have lore attributes that are really good against certain armies, it's never fun to play someone with a VC army when they have 3 lore of light mages, nor is it fun to play against someone with 3 metal mages when using WoC


- FIX challenge system, refusing should mean HUGE drawback to unit -2 LD and no bsb rerolls, no inspiring presence. And attacker should choose who he want to challange or allow fighting lords to challange ALL characters in the unit. So there wont be spam of useless characters blocking someone who could slaughter whole unit for 3 turns. (its just silly), plus overkill should wound unit.

the whole mechanic is messed up, it doesn't reflect epic battles of might heroes, its simply "i'll use this to protect my wizard" or "i'll use it to make you lose attacks"


cavlry should have impact hits against infantry on the turn they charge. Strength dependant on AS (more steel more trample damage)

I would probably change lances cause impact hits on the charge, maybe in place of a single attack.

Nkari
21-11-2013, 00:17
If they go towards avatars of wars when it comes to the rules.. fantasy is dead for me..

I like the current rules, only need minor tweaks to the magic, terrain rules etc..

CrystalSphere
21-11-2013, 11:09
I would like to see removed the spells who kill any miniature without saves, by having instead some spells that ignore armour saves, and others that ignore ward saves (low strength). I also agree with the idea that all warmachines should use the BS of the crew, all shooting should be normalised to work with ballistic skill, much like all melee attacks use weapon skill, and all spells use casting values.

Odin
21-11-2013, 15:43
Guess ranging was never really much of a skill. It was more a celebration of having decent depth perception. Plus there were a good half dozen ways to "guess" ranges without guessing, and yep the modular boards killed it off since it gridified the table for you. To me, the little plastic men are the ones firing the machines, not you the player anyway.

Yup, exactly. That always annoyed me.

I think it would be good to tie war machines to the crew's ballistic skill, in a similar way as you get in 40K (reduce the scatter distance by the crew's Bs).

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
22-11-2013, 22:06
Frankly, I'm quite glad I never played with your group. Or in tournaments, for that matter. And I don't see why judging distances is an unreasonable thing to expect people to do. It's just another skill to bring to the table, just as knowing whether how a unit with Fear interacts with one with Stubborn, or how the Thunderbutt ability stacks with Dreadbeard. Except that being able to judge distance is probably slightly more useful in everyday life.

You could add "skill" to the game by settling combats with arm wrestling or darts, but that doesn't make it a deeper or more tactically nuanced game. Not to mention that unless you had laser precision with your range guessing, the random charges aren't effectively much different.


And your confessional about "I used to be a cheesemonger" in 5th edition doesn't inspire me with confidence either.

It wasn't meant to. It was meant to illustrate that previous editions were just as liable to being cheesed as the current edition. You were just never exposed to it, because there weren't any internet builds and you never played at a high enough level to see the cheese powergamers came up with on their own.

Now if powergaming offends you, as it does many people, then of course you're entitled to that opinion and can play in whatever environment you wish.

But if the meat of the argument you're making here is that random charges make 8th edition less tactically nuanced than previous editions, and by your own admission you never really dug into those depths in previous editions, what makes you suddenly think it's no longer there?

Marked_by_chaos
23-11-2013, 08:03
The speculation over 9th is kind of killing my interest in fantasy at the moment. Normally I'd be excited about the warhammer focus but I can't be bothered to work on my armies or buy new models if there is going to be a huge revamp (that I don't like).

I think there may be one coming, if for nothing more than sales reasons. This is something of a crossroads point for fantasy.

I am broadly happy with the rules save as follows:

1. Magic resistance should always allow a save against all magic (and perhaps also all magic weapons).

2. While the new terrain rules do stop those annoying old scenarios where it took dwarves 3-4 turns to cross a hedgerow, they maybe go too far the other way.

3. Get rid of the storm of magic/scrolls of binding mechanic and bring back bound monsters as a 0-25% allowance. Even if via a separate bestiary supplement.

4. Either bring back larger army specific magic item lists or have certain egregious general list items re-costed for specific armies and certain things simply increased anyway.

5. Change the general vibe a bit. It just seemed a bit too wacky in a silly way. If they want random terrain/background events perhaps it needs to be in the context of the grimmer old school realm of chaos era background. Otherwise tone it down a little. I am all for some mysterious terrain, but just who would buy that empire house, next to the blood forest and across the road from the khemrian necropolis ;)

dalezzz
23-11-2013, 09:34
Mysterious terrain is optional isn't it? There sorted one problem for ya :D

mirloor
25-11-2013, 12:07
Ahhh and one more thing that need to go in 9th.

Weapon usage, character or unit should be able to choose which weapon to use if they have two of them, there should not be some retarded rule saying i have normal weapon with which i could wound someone but i wont use it, rather i want to be impotent with my magic stick. Same with units if they want to swap ensorcelled weapons for hand weapons in this turn of combat they should be able to.

theJ
25-11-2013, 18:47
Simple "fix" to challenges; disallow unit champions from doing it.
Unit champion vs unit champion was never a big deal, cinematically or otherwise, anyway.
"Shielding" a valuable unit by sacrificing something else would still be a possibility, but now, you'd have to sacrifice something with actual value(I.E. lesser heroes).
Would make challenges a bigger, but less common, deal - each challenge would see an actual hero or lord die, and thus have a much greater impact both on the battle, and on the mentality of the players, greatly increasing the value of characters built to challenge, and stop the battles from getting bogged down by scores of "mini-challenges" between "characters" that ultimately don't matter.
Thoughts?

mirloor
25-11-2013, 19:13
In my opinion it's not enough. We have for example Chaos Lord on Dragon and unit of halabardiers with champion, priest, captain and lvl1 wizard. This unit could be eaten wholly in 1 turn but because of retarded challange system this guy is stuck for 5 turns killing one by one. Thats why killer character should be able to challange ALL characters in the unit ( they can all accept or all refuse). And wounds after challlange should be allocated against the unit.

theJ
25-11-2013, 19:31
A "mass challenge", you say?
Hardly a good idea on its own, but as an addition to "standard" challenges, sure. Being allowed to issue a challenge for all enemy characters in the combat at once would actually be really really cool...(and cinematic to boot! :D)
I don't think it'd be a good idea to have any middle grounds, though. Challenge single, challenge all, or don't challenge at all is the way to go, methinks.

mirloor
25-11-2013, 19:37
Yes exactly, one or all. You cant pick this one yes that one no. So you could put something fighty there to scare challange all. But spam of useless dudes wont work.

Zinch
25-11-2013, 19:41
Simple "fix" to challenges; disallow unit champions from doing it.
Unit champion vs unit champion was never a big deal, cinematically or otherwise, anyway.
"Shielding" a valuable unit by sacrificing something else would still be a possibility, but now, you'd have to sacrifice something with actual value(I.E. lesser heroes).
Would make challenges a bigger, but less common, deal - each challenge would see an actual hero or lord die, and thus have a much greater impact both on the battle, and on the mentality of the players, greatly increasing the value of characters built to challenge, and stop the battles from getting bogged down by scores of "mini-challenges" between "characters" that ultimately don't matter.
Thoughts?

I like this idea


In my opinion it's not enough. We have for example Chaos Lord on Dragon and unit of halabardiers with champion, priest, captain and lvl1 wizard. This unit could be eaten wholly in 1 turn but because of retarded challange system this guy is stuck for 5 turns killing one by one. Thats why killer character should be able to challange ALL characters in the unit ( they can all accept or all refuse). And wounds after challlange should be allocated against the unit.

Then don't charge that unit? I don't think every single enemy unit will have 3 characters...

Odin
25-11-2013, 19:43
In my opinion it's not enough. We have for example Chaos Lord on Dragon and unit of halabardiers with champion, priest, captain and lvl1 wizard. This unit could be eaten wholly in 1 turn but because of retarded challange system this guy is stuck for 5 turns killing one by one. Thats why killer character should be able to challange ALL characters in the unit ( they can all accept or all refuse). And wounds after challlange should be allocated against the unit.

I would make thunderstomp something that is always applied like shooting attacks to the unit, even in a challenge. The way a monster in a challenge can precision tapdance on the head of the enemy challenger is silly.

This would mean that a single hero can't fully prevent the damage of a monster crashing into his unit. It also helps fix the problem where a character who relies on speed and skill to avoid blows in combat is crushed without a chance of avoiding it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

dalezzz
26-11-2013, 09:05
Champions should be able to accept challenges , it's what they are for , believe it not but goblins don't pay 10points for an extra ws2 str3 attack, chaos players getting an extra ws4 str4 attack with the ability to turn into a demon prince ( and reliably kill a lot of characters out there) for a bonus 10 seems to have given them a sense of entitlement. Maybe have champions make ld test to make a challenge? Cept chaos who make them as per usual

i think thunderstomp should hit the unit though , first hit goes on the challenger ( dead or alive) then moves into the unit, so abad roll can still see you get nothing, but chances are all will be well

the mass challenge rule sounds funny , terrible from a balance pov maybe but certainly cool :D maybe have it so only 1 model gets sent to the back if they refuse?

Lyynark
30-11-2013, 22:00
There are a few changes I would make, but one in particular is:

1. Models in combat can always elect (unless in a challenge) to attack the rank and file models of other unit, regardless if they are in base to base with such a model or not. This would prevent some of the silly death star shenanigans where the front rank is filled with tough to kill characters (ethereal models being the worst offenders) thus forcing rank and file models to more or less waste their attacks against them.

Spiney Norman
30-11-2013, 22:09
There are a few changes I would make, but one in particular is:

1. Models in combat can always elect (unless in a challenge) to attack the rank and file models of other unit, regardless if they are in base to base with such a model or not. This would prevent some of the silly death star shenanigans where the front rank is filled with tough to kill characters (ethereal models being the worst offenders) thus forcing rank and file models to more or less waste their attacks against them.

Hmmm, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually like the way that characters function in combat in the current edition of 40k, I think fantasy could definitely benefit from the idea of 'precision strikes' or challenges being the only way to put damage on characters in combat. Being able to target anyone in B2B at them just makes them a bit too easy to kill.

Belakor
30-11-2013, 22:33
Models in combat can always elect (unless in a challenge) to attack the rank and file models of other unit, regardless if they are in base to base with such a model or not. This would prevent some of the silly death star shenanigans where the front rank is filled with tough to kill characters (ethereal models being the worst offenders) thus forcing rank and file models to more or less waste their attacks against them.

It is something I use with my Ogres but I would have no problem seeing it go, and it would actually make for a more tactical experience.

theunwantedbeing
30-11-2013, 23:29
Hmmm, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually like the way that characters function in combat in the current edition of 40k, I think fantasy could definitely benefit from the idea of 'precision strikes' or challenges being the only way to put damage on characters in combat. Being able to target anyone in B2B at them just makes them a bit too easy to kill.

You could only allow b2b attacks to be directed.
That way supporting attacks are stuck going on the unit (and can avoid character walls, challenges, conga lines, etc).

Seems less open to abuse than not letting characters be attacked.