PDA

View Full Version : Your biggest 8th edition gripe



Pages : [1] 2 3

ashc
03-09-2013, 11:44
I'm starting this thread running off of the back of the 9th edition rumour thread where people began discussing the large drop in interest in warhammer fantasy since the release of 8th edition.

What do people think the biggest problems holding 8th edition back are? - Is it rules, GWs releases, armies or what?

DaemonReign
03-09-2013, 12:03
The Daemon-update.
Shelved the biggest pro-painted legal Daemon-army in the World.
Cudos, Ward.

IcedCrow
03-09-2013, 12:17
IMO the biggest flaw of 8th edition is the way the system makes people feel that they are compelled to take level 4 wizards all the time, and how to many, six-dicing spells is their primary tactic. This is due primarily to the unbalanced spells in the main rulebook combined with the casting/dispelling mechanics.

Avian
03-09-2013, 12:17
It has essentially died out in my town - I have played something like one battle every six months during 8th when previously I'd play every other week, and I don't think there's anyone more active than that around. I suspect that it's partly due to the veterans (like me) not liking the rules* and the cost per army going up. That leads to no recruits and no veterans playing either.


* specifically: units can move too quickly, can reform too often and are too often too hard to break

antin3
03-09-2013, 12:26
In my area I have seen several new players get going. This is due mainly to one of our regular gamers working hard to bring in some of the 40k players. I think the biggest problem isn't 8th edition, I think it is that nobody, and I mean nobody in my area played 7th for a long time and GW waited on 8th too long. That coupled iwth the fact that to build an army you need to spend a lot of cash. So I guess my biggest complaint is the cost followed closely by interest in the game. Most people that play WFB will like 40k and 40k is a smaller model count game and requires a lot less models to get going.

teddet
03-09-2013, 12:47
I've played more and bought more miniatures in 8th Ed than all other editions combined, and I've been playing since early fifth edition. However, I think that gw has actual sales data - not just a collection of our anecdotes - and will make any decisions based on that. A book with all the armies is I similar to the LOTR game, right? Did players feel there was sufficient uniqueness there?

Ghremdal
03-09-2013, 12:50
My top 3 are:

1) Challenges
2) Standard of discipline
3) Lvl 4's/spell generation

StygianBeach
03-09-2013, 12:58
My biggest gripe is True Line of Sight.... I doubt that this is holding 8th back though.

I would say the only thing holding 8th back is fewer new players comming into the hobby.
As was mentioned earlier, I think the best way to deal with that issue is to adjust the rules so that Warhammer scales down better. Areas of interest include Magic users, supporting attacks, steadfast and cannons.

Shadeseraph
03-09-2013, 13:02
In my area it has been about the same than it has always been, frankly. If anything, the amount of players have increased, as a couple of WH40K only friends got a stable income high enough to start delving into WHFB.

As for gripes... Not many, really. I play MSU and do not six dice spells, so the magic thing is not much of a problem to me; and steadfast is not that hard to deal with once you get used to it and learn to deal with it (specially now that everyone is starting to go back to low count armies). The increase in mobility is a very nice addition, too.

If I had to point some gripes:
-Terrain Rules. Frankly, I do not think TLOS is a good idea for abstract terrain. Unless we are talking big buildings, it is almost impossible to completely hide anything. Furthermore, I do think terrain (specifically forests) should impede movement.
-Magic Items. I've always though that magic items should be more of a cosmetic thing, something that made the character a bit more "characterful", over the game changers they are. Some armies change their game completely just because of a couple magic items that are way too powerful. Of course, this is more of a WHFB thing, rather than an 8th edition thing, but still.

Finally, the only thing I really do not like about 8th edition is how step-up rules nerf heavily less defensive characters. If it was me, I'd just remove all characters from the game, but as long as they are in it, and are a necessity, I'd rather have them viable without the full set of christmas decoration.

Fieos
03-09-2013, 13:11
The inequity between Warriors of Chaos Daemon Prince and... well... the Daemons of Chaos army book.

Maybe...

Old books being too unbalanced for the past two years due to the rules changes (Looking at you Skaven)

Or...

The cost of GW models for the large armies.

Could be...

Watching players leaving in droves for Warmahordes. (Picked up a Trollbloods army to see what the fuss was about. Great game)

But....

WHFB is still my favorite miniature game. Just wish new players didn't need several hundred dollars and hours and hours to start the hobby. Huge deterrent when $40 gets them started in Warmahordes.

konate
03-09-2013, 13:17
The dominance of magic, template weapons which hit ridden monsters also hit characters (cannon sniping), and Ld 10 rerolling slaves.

Lord Solar Plexus
03-09-2013, 13:26
My biggest gripe is that the boss won't let me work half-time for the same money, so I can play more.

What's holding others back is the same as since the dawn of time: Some have no money, some have a girlfriend/family, some also have other hobbies/computer games.

In addition, there is more competition than say, 10 years ago. In my area however, people play Infinity and X-Wing and FF instead of 40k though.

Some of the concerns or reasons voiced here are just nonsense. Imbalance was much more crass in the past, and Warmachine outright tells you to shut up and play like you've got a pair. Terrain and six-dicing could be optimized and improved upon but terrain wasn't WFB's forte in previous editions either. Infantry in a wood in 7th was pretty much out of the game. Also, nearly all tournaments in Germany are comped to some extent, most often Combat 8, and they do away with endless PD generation or 6-dicing with just a side remark.

IcedCrow
03-09-2013, 13:28
To be fair.... slaves are part of a 7th edition book that needs to be redone.

On 40k requiring less models - it really doesn't. There have been a good dozen of these threads over the past couple months which show how this is not true. My 2000 pt 40k armies are all comparable to my 2500 point warhammer armies, and if money and model count is an issue, WHFB has low model count armies like ogres where you can get away with 20-30 models or a chaos warrior army centered around chariots. The myth that 40k requires less models is a slanderous one that kills the game for people before they even look at it due to people telling them that they will need a lot more models which implicitly infers a lot more cash to buy said mythical a lot more models.

I think its a regional thing overall. In my city, our narrative campaign (narrative campaign mind you, this is not a tournament league) has 28 active players and we've had 37 play so far total, with another 6 more or so projected to join on this month putting us at 34 active players.

This doesn't count the 5 tournament-only guys I know plus the one shop in town that sticks to itself for the most part but has 9 or so active players. Those are just the guys that play in shops, not counting guys that play in their homes, so I'd say we have a healthy WHFB community here, despite the issues some have with 8th. Its still exponentially better than 7th is in my opinion. I quit for three years because of 7th edition.

Soundwave
03-09-2013, 13:35
Strangly enough growing in my area too people are swapping to the fantasy side more and more...i had a little skip into 40k for a while although my anchor point is fantasy so off to the side will go my four 40k armies to pick back up one of six fantasy...
Anyhow my biggest gripe with 8th is steadfast,crown of command ,wizard insta kill spells and deathstars.Although i am feeling more and more acustom with these rules than any previous addition. Main reason being the higher rate of model removal(killing).

Artinam
03-09-2013, 13:39
For me the super spells of the magic system. This in combination of people caring little for miscasting meaning super spells are very common.
Second, 7th edition armybook simply weren't balanced for this edition. The first years the top tier armies of 7th edition still dominated (Looking at your Daemons, Dark Elves and Skaven).

Sureshot05
03-09-2013, 13:47
To be fair.... slaves are part of a 7th edition book that needs to be redone.

On 40k requiring less models - it really doesn't. There have been a good dozen of these threads over the past couple months which show how this is not true. My 2000 pt 40k armies are all comparable to my 2500 point warhammer armies, and if money and model count is an issue, WHFB has low model count armies like ogres where you can get away with 20-30 models or a chaos warrior army centered around chariots. The myth that 40k requires less models is a slanderous one that kills the game for people before they even look at it due to people telling them that they will need a lot more models which implicitly infers a lot more cash to buy said mythical a lot more models.

I think its a regional thing overall. In my city, our narrative campaign (narrative campaign mind you, this is not a tournament league) has 28 active players and we've had 37 play so far total, with another 6 more or so projected to join on this month putting us at 34 active players.

This doesn't count the 5 tournament-only guys I know plus the one shop in town that sticks to itself for the most part but has 9 or so active players. Those are just the guys that play in shops, not counting guys that play in their homes, so I'd say we have a healthy WHFB community here, despite the issues some have with 8th. Its still exponentially better than 7th is in my opinion. I quit for three years because of 7th edition.

I respectfullly disagree. I think you need to compare 2000 pts with 2000pts, not different points.

In warhammer, you have several units which have troops for 3-4 pts a pop. In 40k this is far less common. In both games it is possible to design armies with very few models (ogres and grey knights) but in warhammer the average soldier is 6-10 pts. In 40k it's a marine, which is 14 pts a pop. In these cases you can easily see that warhammer does require more models.

However, directed at the main question I think the reason is model count, too high a core requirement to get the fun models (big hang up for new players), and set up time.

Set up time for a new player is a huge factor I would warrant is also a winning factor for warmahordes. Ranked regiments may look great, but for a new player, setting these up (no magnets!) takes a long time. By the time this is done, they are too bored to play.

Wash
03-09-2013, 13:58
Hordes - Where I do like the idea of large units, and they are effective. However I would just prefer taking more smaller units as it makes the movement phase a lot more interesting. Showing up to a game with 3 units its flat out boring to play against.
Magic - Lores need to be balanced
BoTWD - Seriously, wtf were they thinking when making this? I play high elves, and I think this item is incredibly stupid. When I face high elves with any of my other armies, I hate the idea of facing this thing. I can't even give my combat lords a magic weapon anymore. Lame.

IcedCrow
03-09-2013, 14:05
I respectfullly disagree. I think you need to compare 2000 pts with 2000pts, not different points.

In warhammer, you have several units which have troops for 3-4 pts a pop. In 40k this is far less common. In both games it is possible to design armies with very few models (ogres and grey knights) but in warhammer the average soldier is 6-10 pts. In 40k it's a marine, which is 14 pts a pop. In these cases you can easily see that warhammer does require more models.

However, directed at the main question I think the reason is model count, too high a core requirement to get the fun models (big hang up for new players), and set up time.

Set up time for a new player is a huge factor I would warrant is also a winning factor for warmahordes. Ranked regiments may look great, but for a new player, setting these up (no magnets!) takes a long time. By the time this is done, they are too bored to play.

2000 points to 2000 points isn't the same comparison though. The default that people jump on is often going to be the "tournament standard". For 40k that's 1850. For warhammer, that's 2400.

We cannot accurately say what the average soldier is because it largely depends on the meta and the group.

If you are a part of a group that has three chaos warrior players, a demon player, an elf player, and an empire player... what is the average soldier cost? Much higher than 6-10 pts.

If you are a part of a group that has a goblin player, a skaven player, an empire player, and a chaos warrior player, the average soldier cost is much lower.

There are 11 or so army books to choose from, all with varying degree of point cost.

In 40k you are right... 7 out of 10 players play marines. So you know that the average guy is 14-15 points. Until you get in groups where you have a lot of IG and Ork players. Now your average guy cost has come down quite a bit...

My CSM army is sitting at around 70 models at 2000 points, which is actually less than my chaos warrior army can field at 2500 points. (CSM being chaos marines which are still marines). The difference is not the model count, the difference is that the unit sizes in 40k are smaller. Barring my cultists, my marine units are all units of 7 (death guard, sacred number of 7 etc). My warrior units are 20, my marauders can get up to 40.

I think you're right with the second part of your post though. I hear that complaint a lot... no one wants to use core or troops, people want to field all specials and elites. That is a shame really but that's a different mindset than what warhammer caters to. It certainly is not a special forces game so if that's one's thing, one won't like warhammer.

Setup of a 2500 point army takes about 15 - 20 minutes (we had our campaign day last saturday, 20 players... from noon to 12:20 all 20 armies were set up and ready. If 20 minutes is too long and one is too bored after that, I would suggest xbox because the attention span IMO is very low in that scenario.

arthurfallz
03-09-2013, 14:15
Army Books. Several armies still not updated, so there's no even field. The armies all have excellent models, and the mechanics could be improved once every army is using the same base rules set in the book published for them. Every army book I've grabbed for 8th edition has been excellent, and we've found in my group they play well against each other.

Cleaning up TLOS (I'm thinking making it more like Warmachine's LOS) and magic would go a long way as well.

On a broader scale, 8th edition needs to release some tournament rules. A chapter on tournament formats is required. I don't play in tournaments, and have little interest personally, but creating a chapter that adopts what a lot of modern RPGs have been including - designers notes - would be a big help in discussing the game and modelling rules to fit tournaments. The impact of terrain (or lack thereof), if special characters should be included at all, list building requirements / strategies, how time and movement factor into the game.

Spiney Norman
03-09-2013, 14:18
Well Warhammer is still going strong in my area, the GCN club I am a part of has WFB games going on every week and is currently running two extremely successful WFB events, including a Tale of Gamers escalation with 18 participants and a Blood in the Badlands map-based campaign with 8 players.

I do prefer 8th edition to 7th, but that is mostly down to the dire balance of individual armies in 7th rather than the core mechanics.

What really lets 8th down is the magic mechanics, particularly the higher end spells that make L4 wizards almost essential to remain in contention, and the dominance of monstrous units, particularly monstrous cavalry, to the point where, despite all the buffs that infantry got with the 8E rules set, they are once again being sidelined as the less-powerful choice.

Wesser
03-09-2013, 14:33
It's a standoff between an actual rule and how people use an actual rule.

For an actual rule TLOS works for 40k yes, WFB....nooooope

The worst is actually how people abuse "Make Way" to leapfrog characters about including:

1. Hiding Crown of Command in a rank where the character with it cant be hit.

2. The worst however is how OK behaves. Characters in second rank where they can still hit with great weapons, but don't have to take impact hits/lance hits/first cannon hits etc.

Then they can choose to leap into the front rank at will once the danger has passed or they can just sit back and crown of command it...

3. Or when people just parks a champion or hero at the edge of cavalry units. A tanky build or better yet a challenge can mean any unit intending to flank won't get to strike. (Basically here I think models in a challenge should be moved out of their units to prevent this ********)

jestacardo
03-09-2013, 14:34
Love 8th but two gripes:

-True Line of Sight, hate it and it encourages modelling for advantage. We universally house rule it out here.
-Some of the 6th Spells seem a bit over the top, but doesn't spoil my enjoyment.

Lord Solar Plexus
03-09-2013, 14:37
The Daemon-update.

That has nothing to do with 8th edition.


40k is a smaller model count game and requires a lot less models to get going.

That's an urban myth.


units can move too quickly, can reform too often and are too often too hard to break

That actually leaves me speechless (don't worry, just for a moment). Are you sure you're not just levelling some vague and unspecific accusations? "What holds it back?" "I just don't like how it plays!" Okay...I mean what is the right amount that all units may move?!? How can units often be too hard to break? I mean I don't even understand that statement.... Less mobility just encourages gunlines, and being uncatchable is very frustrating. It's hard to see how that would be better.



Finally, the only thing I really do not like about 8th edition is how step-up rules nerf heavily less defensive characters. If it was me, I'd just remove all characters from the game, but as long as they are in it, and are a necessity, I'd rather have them viable without the full set of christmas decoration.

Again, that makes no sense. Why precisely should a sorceror who's only protection is a cape be viable in the thick of fighting?!? Why should that not be punished? I'm afraid having unarmoured guys in the front rank without repercussion for their health is not what I think will attract people to start WFB. Step up is an excellent rule, as without it, basic and some medium troops simply have no place in the game.

IcedCrow
03-09-2013, 14:42
Step up is an excellent rule, as without it, basic and some medium troops simply have no place in the game.

Step up made the game good again IMO. 7th edition's cavalry army prevalence was largely due to killing the first rank and not having to worry.... which is why so few took any infantry and the tables never resembled in my mind's eye an army... it resembled cavalry lines with some cannons as support.

So thumbs up to step up from me.

Feefait
03-09-2013, 14:50
I think that the sky rocketing prices are the biggest issues. People who play Warhammer will play it generally regardless, but new players won't come in at the entrance fee. I have a friend and his son who are both interested in playing with me and my son. Then we started talking price of them building their own army, and we were done. For soemthing like $12 they can go play Magic weekly and get new cards, not have to paint and be done in a couple hours. A kid cannot take his weekly allowance and buy anything near playable in a game.

Anyone saying an army book has 'ruined' 8th is ridiculous. No one book has that much pull to bring down an entire game. If you are sad about your precious demons going from being ridiculously over powered to needing some thought then go talk to a Dark Elf, Orc or Wood Elf player - they suffered for years with under-powered books and persevered.

As far as I can tell the simplicity of the rules, and the ease of exploitation is the biggest gripe. We play Warhammer generally for big battles, but units of 100 goblins, slaves, skinks whatever is ridiculous. Somethings (Warmachines, maneuvers) got so easy to do or use that half the strategy we used to play for is gone. I remember the days of elemental swarms and vortexes rolling along in games, and we all played and had fun. I don't think 'big spells' are the sole issue. Again, I just think it' show easy it is to do those things.

ashc
03-09-2013, 14:50
I think most are probably happy with step-up, steadfast was contentious from the start.

theunwantedbeing
03-09-2013, 15:03
Biggest gripe?

The way it was designed for the completely laid back gamer with no expectation of anyone looking for rules abuses or power combo's.

Khorneguy
03-09-2013, 15:06
My biggest bugbear with 8th is how rubbish they've made Cavalry so rubbish compared to massed infantry. I know striking first on the charge with everything was an issue with 7th ed, but they should've kept it on Cavalry for 8th and it would've made them useful again. Plus it would've been fluffy. Real life knights were shock troops designed to break infantry. They would use the weight and shock factor of their armoured steeds to crush them before they could attack back. Pikes could've been introduced in a more widespread manner then, by making them remove the Cavalry's ability to strike first - they were originally developed to counter knights after all.

Sureshot05
03-09-2013, 15:12
2000 points to 2000 points isn't the same comparison though. The default that people jump on is often going to be the "tournament standard". For 40k that's 1850. For warhammer, that's 2400.

We cannot accurately say what the average soldier is because it largely depends on the meta and the group.

If you are a part of a group that has three chaos warrior players, a demon player, an elf player, and an empire player... what is the average soldier cost? Much higher than 6-10 pts.

If you are a part of a group that has a goblin player, a skaven player, an empire player, and a chaos warrior player, the average soldier cost is much lower.

There are 11 or so army books to choose from, all with varying degree of point cost.

In 40k you are right... 7 out of 10 players play marines. So you know that the average guy is 14-15 points. Until you get in groups where you have a lot of IG and Ork players. Now your average guy cost has come down quite a bit...

My CSM army is sitting at around 70 models at 2000 points, which is actually less than my chaos warrior army can field at 2500 points. (CSM being chaos marines which are still marines). The difference is not the model count, the difference is that the unit sizes in 40k are smaller. Barring my cultists, my marine units are all units of 7 (death guard, sacred number of 7 etc). My warrior units are 20, my marauders can get up to 40.

I think you're right with the second part of your post though. I hear that complaint a lot... no one wants to use core or troops, people want to field all specials and elites. That is a shame really but that's a different mindset than what warhammer caters to. It certainly is not a special forces game so if that's one's thing, one won't like warhammer.

Setup of a 2500 point army takes about 15 - 20 minutes (we had our campaign day last saturday, 20 players... from noon to 12:20 all 20 armies were set up and ready. If 20 minutes is too long and one is too bored after that, I would suggest xbox because the attention span IMO is very low in that scenario.

With regards to points costs, the point (ha!) is that there are armies with very low troop cost, only nids get close in 40k, and their basic gaunt is still 4pt a shot. Warhammer has several armies with cheap horde units, so I would argue that the average cost is greater. However, I can see your point, but remain on the otherside of the fence on this one. :)

Set up is again army dependent. You don't bring an unmagnetised goblin horde to a tournament precisely because of the time to set up. Compare that with 40k, for 2400 pts, I can set up a horde of guardsmen in 20 mins, I couldn't dream of ranking up and setting up a horde of goblins in the same amount of time. The ranking up issue is key, as it is one step more fiddly than the equivalent action in 40k and warmahordes as you need to be precise with your positioning. 40k you can effectively throw a unit on the table and it is almost good to go (though anyone who throws my 40k army onto the table is in serious trouble!). Warhammer regiments need ranking up. 20 mins for someone who knows what they are doing and has built their regiments cleverly is not an issue, 30 mins for a new player with a poorly assembled and confused regiment is. And don't get me started on the skirmish formation, again something which a vet has no issues with and every new player detests.

jestacardo
03-09-2013, 15:16
I bet that Orc and Goblin horde army can complete their movement phase a heck of a lot faster than that IG horde though!

Swings and roundabouts.

Shadeseraph
03-09-2013, 15:23
Again, that makes no sense. Why precisely should a sorceror who's only protection is a cape be viable in the thick of fighting?!? Why should that not be punished? I'm afraid having unarmoured guys in the front rank without repercussion for their health is not what I think will attract people to start WFB. Step up is an excellent rule, as without it, basic and some medium troops simply have no place in the game.

I meant unkitted combat characters, not magic characters. Specifically "on foot" ones. You either overkit them with magic items for defense, or they are just a waste, as other than their ability to carry 50 points of magic items, they are 2-3 models for the price of 10 on a single base. Pretty much this is a complaint about the reliance on magic items, anyway, which I dislike, not about Step up, which I find perfectly fine.

And about magic items, as stated, that's my grip with the whole WHFB franchise, not with 8th ed, so nothing to see here. That, and I'd rather have character work as support, rather than raw power. Give the units special abilities, and the like.

Sureshot05
03-09-2013, 15:32
I bet that Orc and Goblin horde army can complete their movement phase a heck of a lot faster than that IG horde though!

Swings and roundabouts.

Very true, but compare a unit of 10 goldswords with 10 marines. A new player is likely to have one of these sort of things for their new army. Moving the marines, he chucks them forward, and voila! done. In warhammer, he/her has to tidy them back up into formation as he has yet to invest in any movement trays, especially as a movement tray means less models for his/her army!

Though your point does make me think this is why guard have static gunlines ;)

IcedCrow
03-09-2013, 15:35
My biggest bugbear with 8th is how rubbish they've made Cavalry so rubbish compared to massed infantry. I know striking first on the charge with everything was an issue with 7th ed, but they should've kept it on Cavalry for 8th and it would've made them useful again. Plus it would've been fluffy. Real life knights were shock troops designed to break infantry. They would use the weight and shock factor of their armoured steeds to crush them before they could attack back. Pikes could've been introduced in a more widespread manner then, by making them remove the Cavalry's ability to strike first - they were originally developed to counter knights after all.

Can't agree with this at all. Knights are still potent. They just can't go charging into a massed unit of infantry and one shot them like they could in the last edition. Real life infantry also had anti-cavalry weapons like pikes which warhammer does not support.

Knights in the game are designed as support elements that can turn the tide of any game if used properly, not the brain dead sledge hammer that they were in editions past, and I think strongly that that is a good thing

Our campaign group right now has several knight heavy empire builds and bretonnian armies that are doing very well, to the point that one of our empire cavalry players has a bounty on his head from the destruction camp. His army is mostly inner circle knights, knights, demigryph knights, a steam tank, and artillery. He has done very well.

IcedCrow
03-09-2013, 15:39
With regards to points costs, the point (ha!) is that there are armies with very low troop cost, only nids get close in 40k, and their basic gaunt is still 4pt a shot. Warhammer has several armies with cheap horde units, so I would argue that the average cost is greater. However, I can see your point, but remain on the otherside of the fence on this one. :)

Set up is again army dependent. You don't bring an unmagnetised goblin horde to a tournament precisely because of the time to set up. Compare that with 40k, for 2400 pts, I can set up a horde of guardsmen in 20 mins, I couldn't dream of ranking up and setting up a horde of goblins in the same amount of time. The ranking up issue is key, as it is one step more fiddly than the equivalent action in 40k and warmahordes as you need to be precise with your positioning. 40k you can effectively throw a unit on the table and it is almost good to go (though anyone who throws my 40k army onto the table is in serious trouble!). Warhammer regiments need ranking up. 20 mins for someone who knows what they are doing and has built their regiments cleverly is not an issue, 30 mins for a new player with a poorly assembled and confused regiment is. And don't get me started on the skirmish formation, again something which a vet has no issues with and every new player detests.

Different strokes for different folks then. It is true that the games cater to different things and mindsets. There can't be a one game to rule them all. Warhammer Fantasy caters to a completely different mindset, and admittedly it is an older mindset, than the current generation of kids. It is not designed to be quick and easy (if it was I wouldn't play it)

SteveW
03-09-2013, 15:40
The only gripe I have with 8th comes from out of date books that are far too powerful for the edition.

As for cavalry taking a hit in power, it needed to be done. Cavalry was far to powerful last edition, it should not auto win on the charge against 5-10 times it's number.

Fear Ghoul
03-09-2013, 15:59
My biggest gripe with 8th edition? I hate how the two players roll for their Winds of Magic separately, creating unfortunate (and game breaking) situations where one player gets 5 power dice in their turn and the other player gets 10 in their turn, even though events in one game turn are meant to be simultaneous. Make players roll for Winds of Magic at the start of the game turn and you substantially reduce the random unfairness in the game in a single stroke.

jestacardo
03-09-2013, 16:02
Very true, but compare a unit of 10 goldswords with 10 marines. A new player is likely to have one of these sort of things for their new army. Moving the marines, he chucks them forward, and voila! done. In warhammer, he/her has to tidy them back up into formation as he has yet to invest in any movement trays, especially as a movement tray means less models for his/her army!


They can always make movement trays from the back of a cereal box, works just as well, the ones GW used to give out were just cardboard after all.

Lord Solar Plexus
03-09-2013, 16:08
My biggest bugbear with 8th is how rubbish they've made Cavalry so rubbish compared to massed infantry.

This is just a bunch of malarky. Cavalry is excellent. Knights are excellent. You know what HE field for their core? Not this supposedly unbeatable massed infantry. But wait you'll say, HE core have problems A, B and C - and so what? Your point doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. Look at the Tactical Exposition Games we have on W-E. Lots of cavalry. Lots of Knights, very successful. Look up the Hoodling's blog, he's been fielding Knights ever since.


I meant unkitted combat characters

That's why I asked you to explain what business these unprepared dudes unfit for combat have in combat. I mean some are perhaps in for smaller games where not everyone ignores armour, some could ride a horse, and some will simply always be useless...but again, that's just a generalization. I do respect that you don't like that facet but I see a whole bunch of useful Empire, Skaven, O&G characters around...which admittedly are not always pure combat but hey.

Lars Porsenna
03-09-2013, 16:32
On the question of knights or other shock (heavy) cavalry, if the infantry stood and fought, they could defeat a charge frontally. Horses will not charge into something that they cannot see a way around, or that they will (wisely) know will lame or kill them. Thus a body of infantry with locked shields and spears could defeat a charge frontally as long as they stood and fought (but as soon as they routed, they would be easy pickings for cavalry!). OTOH, the idea of heavy knight crashing through formations is probably a Victorian myth, for the aforementioned reasons. Last I looked at the material, we don't really know what exactly happens at the moment of contact when dealing with knights, but some of the sources I've read is that a charge is done at the trot (for late medieval -- i.e. the fully plate armored knights and MAA) rather than the gallop, and the horses were trained to push, rather than crash headlong into a formation.

To make a long story short, the cavalry "nerfing" in the game probably makes them more realistic. I realize this is a fantasy game, so realism isn't always a top priority.

Damon.

StygianBeach
03-09-2013, 16:59
Very true, but compare a unit of 10 goldswords with 10 marines. A new player is likely to have one of these sort of things for their new army. Moving the marines, he chucks them forward, and voila! done. In warhammer, he/her has to tidy them back up into formation as he has yet to invest in any movement trays, especially as a movement tray means less models for his/her army!

Though your point does make me think this is why guard have static gunlines ;)

This is one of the reasons why I dread Scale creap. It makes ranking up the Fellas more of a hassel.

Sexiest_hero
03-09-2013, 17:07
My biggest gripe with 8th, is the lack of public relations, Don't laugh hear me out. 8th was a semi big change, there was no reason they shouldn't have expected backlash. The beginning of 8th was almost ruined by the sour pusses, who quit to play warma-hordes but still hang around to say how much their army sucks and that you sould play wama-hordes and stop being a "GW FAN_BOI". If GW would have sat down and explained...who am I kidding, Gamers are gonna gripe no matter what.

IcedCrow
03-09-2013, 17:18
Gamers are gonna gripe no matter what.

Yessir! This is the most correct statement of the day :D

Urgat
03-09-2013, 17:56
It's the price of the minis, if you ask me, and not the rules.

StygianBeach
03-09-2013, 18:02
It's the price of the minis, if you ask me, and not the rules.

Very true, but this is also tied to the size of the game (model count).

yabbadabba
03-09-2013, 18:15
What is preventing GW as a whole being more successful is prices.

What needs to be changed in WFB is the mindset, and that ain't gonna happen.

Sexiest_hero
03-09-2013, 19:01
The prices are an big issue,I balk at clam shell over 12$ units over 25$ and monsters over 40$. Selling a hero for 40, a unit for 90 (blood knights) is just too much.

Dawicollector
03-09-2013, 19:03
I love 8th, i got back into the game because of it (mostly because it made playing Dwarfs a lot more fun), but the alterations to the game mechanics have resulted in unit sizes becoming bigger and generally taking on a bit more of an 'epic' feel. IMHO, WHB 8th is a bit like Test Cricket, its quite an involved game, its a bit slower to play (than say 40K), and is quite complex and cerebral. It's also at its best at higher points levels (e.g. 2000pts +) and to achieve this level of satisfaction requires an substantial investment of time and money. Whilst this can be rewarding (and IMO it certainly is) it does present any newcomer to the game with something of a daunting task ahead of them, creating an obvious barrier to entry to anyone who is (a) short of free time, (b) just looking to test the waters, and/or (c) is a young kid with so many other distractions in life competing for his/her time. The result of this, as many have observed, is that there just aren't as many people starting up WFB has a hobby as compared to say 40K.

IMO, an interesting way to approach this would be to split WFB in two and have an amended/alternative simpler rule set for smaller points games (say up to 1500pts) which makes smaller units playable. Examples could include things such as, retaining the "step up" rule, but removing all supporting attacks and/or getting rank bonuses for units that are 4 models wide. Perhaps even getting rid of thunder-stomp for large monsters. The idea would be to create a system where units the size of those you get in a single box set (e.g. 10 great swords) are a perfectly viable in game unit. This would allow for 2 things at least (i)a more rewarding game with greater variety of unit types available at lower points levels (instead of spending points on a single 30 model unit, you could have 2 different 15 model units) and (ii) would allow new players to better use the GW box sets to create units more quickly, among other things. Essentially you'd be looking create a warhammer version of 20/20 cricket to the current game's 'test match'.

The things that make the game great at high points levels could then be kept, and provide something for new players to aspire to, whilst having fun with their new small army and experimenting more at an earlier stage in their hobby 'career' Thoughts?

Lars Porsenna
03-09-2013, 19:33
IMHO I don't think there needs to be a "simple" and "advanced" version of the game. One thing TSR found out with Dungeons & Dragons is that marketing a "basic" D&D alongside an Advanced D&D meant that most people ignored the basic version and went straight for the advanced anyway. It didn't make a lot of sense then supporting two different rulesets, one simply more simple than the other. I think GW would probably discover the same thing. Rather what needs to happen is that the ruleset should scale better, with just as good an experience at say 1000pts FREX ( the size of a Batalion Box and a few other add-ons) as it is for 3000pts.

Damon.

Scammel
03-09-2013, 19:40
Mini prices and the perception that a lot of models are needed to play probably account for any flagging behind in popularity. I personally find that 40k works best at moderate points values, whilst Fantasy tends to get better as you go up (until you hit a particular ceiling).

From a gamer's perspective, the dependence on high-level wizards is frustrating. It's somewhat offset by the need for a general with good Ld, but SoD in turn offsets that. The Slaughtermaster is probably one of the worst offenders out there for overshadowing combat Lords, he brings so much to the army it's unreal.

hardyworld
03-09-2013, 19:53
1) Price of miniatures.
2) Casting/dispelling adds the level of wizard to each attempt. I'd prefer: +1 for level 1 & 2 mages and +2 for level 3 & 4 mages.
3) How magic dice generation works. It works OK, but I prefered the 7th Ed. model.
4) How Magic Resistance works. I'd prefer units with magic resistance to be resistant to all forms of magic (hex, augment, etc.), not just damage. Possibly: For each level of MR, roll a D3 before a spell would affect a unit (after any dispel attempt). If any 1's are rolled, then no effect occurs.
5) No inclusion of Warbands/Skirmishes into the basic rule set. New players need to be introduced to the rules in smaller games (possibly with more of a focus on character development and a campaign). Selling warband model sets would go very well in hand-in-hand with this marketing strategy and could help grow the hobby. With a very rich fantasy world, many people could be attracted to Warhammer instead of other small hobby games (Warmachine, etc.) with a warband introduction to a future warhammer customer.
6) How Steadfast works. I win combat by 11 because my monsters did awesome in combat, but the ranked unit stays because they have 5 guys left? I like the idea that most models on the tabletop are removed in combat instead of being run down after 1 round of combat, but an alteration of the rule is in order. I'd prefer, steadfast is determined the same way, but break tests for steadfast units is capped at -2 combat resolution (stubborn is still capped at -0 combat resolution). Ranked units are still very likely to hold, but not expected to hold when they lose.
7) Cavalry are mostly useless. I'm not sure how to make them better (other than making them cost less points and make many of them core choices), but one idea is that cavalry only require 1 full rank (not 2 full ranks as required now) in the flank/rear to negate rank bonuses. That probably doesn't help them much, but at least helps. And monstrous cavalry being affected by the same rule change doesn't help them as much as it helps cavalry.
8) How Cannons work. I'm not sure the best way to make them better balanced. Maybe D3+1 wounds instead of D6? Maybe after choosing initial starting point, scatter D3-1 inches then proceed like normal? Maybe both?
9) Specific army options that are too good to be in the game. Tzeench WoC mounted character that is unkillable. DE unkillable character. HE Dragon Banner. Etc.
10) Specific army options that are stupidly underpriced. DoC Khorne Chariot. Hellpit Abombination. Terrorghiest. Hydra. Book of Hoeth. Etc.
11) Specific army options that are no fun to play, but always competitive. Irongut horde. Etc.
12) Specific army options that are untakably bad for their points (compared to other army options). OK Yhetees. WE Waywatchers. BM Cygor. Etc.

I'm sure there are others, but those come to mind. No game is perfect, but 8th Ed. has generally done well with their rules/armies. All they can do is do better next time, hopefully being mindful 8th Ed. mistakes (rules, wording, unbalanced things, etc.) while writing the next edition.

etancross
03-09-2013, 20:05
I usually don't like to reply to these kinds of threads but I thought i would jump in and add a nugget or two of my own.

I think one of the biggest killers is what they did to magic - Sweet Jesus who's idea was it to overhaul magic like this? Maybe if the folks at GW would put their heads together and come up with the idea that magic is a "Bite" of the pie, NOT THE WHOLE MEAL. What I mean by this is since "Magic" is a phase of the game, use that phase to help your army do what it needs to do win the game by getting off some extra toughness here, buffing a units ws there etc. The WHOLE thought process of getting off a spell and your opponent having to remove an entire unit from the table is one of WORST ideas of ALL time.

This was NOT needed and it hurt the game so so badly and this needs to be fixed, ive seen armies get raped by this (I mean 2 - 3 units removed from table in the same game its Rare but it does happen) and its just not right. Making it so you HAVE to have a lv4 caster "Just" so you can stay in the game and not get devastated is Bawls. Each phase of the game should complement each other with understandable changes being made here and there. For Example Dwarfs should have a MUCH better shooting phase that High Elves, but at the same time the High Elves a MUCH better magic phase than the Dwarfs, with that being said balance the game so their phase while stronger than the other armies phase is strong and helps the army but does NOT devastate/ruin the entire game and that's where GW has messed up.

Also books like Warriors of Chaos..... come the hell on! They took a few small things away, left everything else and THEN added a bunch of things they didn't even need and that army is CRAZZZZY Good! Then you have books for armies that people LOVE and are DIIIIEEEEIIINNNGGG for an update and they get NOTHING. Like Skaven, like Bretts, like Wood Elves. The changes they made to the system flat out cornholed Wood Elves and GW did NOTHING about it.... nothing! Can you with with Wood Elves... yes, Can you win with Bretonians... yes but at the same time you have to have your enemy looking at your left hand while you're pulling rabbits with the Right.

and for the love of Cheese the price of the miniatures is beyond insane.... I won't even go into this because it makes me so fricken mad.

Fantasy is my absolute favorite Dice game and GW is killing it for me...

Scammel
03-09-2013, 20:17
What I mean by this is since "Magic" is a phase of the game, use that phase to help your army do what it needs to do win the game by getting off some extra toughness here, buffing a units ws there etc.


This is exactly what many of the best spells in the game do. Shadow isn't popular because of pit, it's popular because of the variety of debuffs. I've not seen any units flat-out removed except tiny ones to a Fireball or Bonecrusher.

snyggejygge
03-09-2013, 20:22
The things I'm most bothered with in 8:th edition is magic & steadfast. I love magic, I don't want a historical game but imo it should take more of a supporting role, like in many other games such as Kings of War & Hordes of the Things, remove the big op spells or bring back autofail on double 1, if the rewards are so great as it currently is, then the risks should be higher. As for steadfast, I don't mind the rule, but it should be able to break steadfast with a flank or rear charge, it has made the game feel less tactical imo.

Fear Ghoul
03-09-2013, 20:29
As for steadfast, I don't mind the rule, but it should be able to break steadfast with a flank or rear charge, it has made the game feel less tactical imo.

Cue a 5-man chaff unit flank charging a 50 man ranked unit to remove steadfast. This is not my idea of how to improve steadfast.

Ullis
03-09-2013, 20:54
I have very few gripes with 8th edition as I feel it is one of the better incarnations of Warhammer to date (I have been playing since 4th). The issues I do have and would like to see addressed for 9th are;

-Better balance between unit types/phases of the game i.e infantry, cavalry, monsters, magic and warmachines all having equal importance/usefulness.
-A move to make MSU and MMU units more viable, so as to not "force" everyone into taking hordes. This might require a look at the steadfast mechanic.
-TLoS is odd for fantasy and seems to lead to some gamey modelling.
-A look at improving the buildings rule.

To reiterate, I do not have as many issues with 8th as some folks, but if pushed to give my opinion on some areas that could be improved, the examples above are aspects of the game that I feel could be looked at.

Imperator64
03-09-2013, 20:59
A few things. Tlos just introduces far too many chances for argument and leaves it far too easy for wizards to target enemy units.
And spells like dwellers being able to kill a character in a unit with no chance of any save! It just means you have a 50/50 chance of taking out (for example) a skaven army with one spell.
And one rank being enough to make a few men steadfast even against a monster! Ridiculous.

etancross
03-09-2013, 21:03
This is exactly what many of the best spells in the game do. Shadow isn't popular because of pit, it's popular because of the variety of debuffs. I've not seen any units flat-out removed except tiny ones to a Fireball or Bonecrusher.

Well you also didn't put my whole quote in because i said it is rare to happen 2 and 3 times a game; Yes there are spells that do what I stated and butt WS here and there and toughness here and therer but with that being said ive seen Purple sun take out 3 huge units of Dwarfs in ONE game, ive seen the dreaded 13 effectively feminize a huge unit of WoC. That spell is supposed to be hard to get off and one of those things that when you talk to buddies about it you say "OMG remember about a year ago when i got the dreaded 13th off can took out those warriors"? Yet we have a sunday Warhammer group (ive taken a break from warhammer for the last few months) and I saw the spell go off at least once a sunday and the game DOES NOT need those spells.

When your opponent is taking off entire units from the table during a spell phase that should tell you something is wrong, and something needs to be fixed... Hopefully they learn a lesson and fix this crap.

Lastavenger
03-09-2013, 21:03
Cue a 5-man chaff unit flank charging a 50 man ranked unit to remove steadfast. This is not my idea of how to improve steadfast.
How about doubling the number of ranks (for purposes of steadfast) of flanking unit? You still would need decent size unit to break horde, but at least it would be easier.

@allmyownbattles
03-09-2013, 21:12
This is not news or rumours, just another moan fest. Go play your skirmish games, 8th edition is ace (bar cannons, they should be D3 wounds).

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

etancross
03-09-2013, 21:15
This is not news or rumours, just another moan fest. Go play your skirmish games, 8th edition is ace (bar cannons, they should be D3 wounds).

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

OMG You are right.... Its so Ace that more people have quit than are playing, they are talking about updating it a year early because sales have been dismal and the tournament scene continues to be cut down more and more because no one is showing up!!!! Yea.... 8th Nailed it!!

Shadeseraph
03-09-2013, 21:24
Frankly, Cavalry is perfectly fine, MSU and MMU do not require help to beat hordes (although they are not just straight push model forwards) and flank charges are already deadly enough. And, sincerely, magic isn't that much of a gamewinner as most people here make you think. If anything, 6-dicing is bad because it is boring.

@allmyownbattles
03-09-2013, 21:24
OMG You are right.... Its so Ace that more people have quit than are playing, they are talking about updating it a year early because sales have been dismal and the tournament scene continues to be cut down more and more because no one is showing up!!!! Yea.... 8th Nailed it!!

All based on the moaners on this site. Forums are havens for complainers. It's the same if you try to self diagnose online. All roads lead to cancer. Nobody goes on a health forum to say you're probably fine and would you kindly not chat.

Do you have a figure for how many people played 7th and how many are playing 8th? One guy says it's dying in area, the next says it's never been stronger.

Are 'they' talking about updating it early? Have GW announced this or is it possibly all just waffle made up by one or two forum goers because 'they' want to be popular?

Is the tournament scene disappearing or do tournaments in the UK regularly attract fifty to a hundred players?

Truth is, we don't really know anything for certain. Let's all just have a nice chat and wonder what could/might be.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

Knifeparty
03-09-2013, 21:28
Actually, they did nail it. 8th edition is the best one to date. It has some issues but at the end of the day it is the pricing that people have a hard time swallowing.

8th edition definitely started slow, but now I've seen more players than ever. There's always a big turn out in my city.

I hope they keep most of the rules the same as they have now.

Ullis
03-09-2013, 21:39
OMG You are right.... Its so Ace that more people have quit than are playing, they are talking about updating it a year early because sales have been dismal and the tournament scene continues to be cut down more and more because no one is showing up!!!! Yea.... 8th Nailed it!!

The Warhammer edition cycle is generally a four year one and since 8th came out in 2010, a 2014 release for 9th would be consistent with this trend. As for "more people have quit" and "sale have been dismal", I am not sure where you are getting these ideas from, but that is not the experience of many people.

Andy p
03-09-2013, 22:09
Actually, they did nail it. 8th edition is the best one to date. It has some issues but at the end of the day it is the pricing that people have a hard time swallowing.

8th edition definitely started slow, but now I've seen more players than ever. There's always a big turn out in my city.

I hope they keep most of the rules the same as they have now.

Some may see this as overly optimistic and personalised, but it is perfectly relevant to my experience as well.

outbreak
03-09-2013, 23:26
I don't like steadfast, I've accepted random charging but steadfast is still annoying. Skaven strength in numbers made me shelf that army as I find their too hard against some of the people I play who don't take the game seriously. As afew others mentioned it's been much harder to get regular games against a variety of opponents. My regular club saw all but a couple players move to warmahordes or malifaux after 8th ed launched as it's really more of a beer and pretzels game with some quirky little rules thrown in these days. This is of course all in my opinion and all in the area I live so may change for others of course.

Phazael
03-09-2013, 23:58
There are some minor tweaks that could be done and lots of cleanup, but the core concepts are good. The major problems are in the magic phase and shooting phase.

Magic-
There needs to be more parity in the BRB Lores than there is now. Also, there should be a kill spell for S,T, and Ini, not two for Ini. If Purple Nurple worked off of toughness, that alone would balance a lot of the game. Also, superlores stuffed with gamestoppers need to be toned down (Shadow, mainly, but perhaps Death and Light too).

More than the lore balance, there needs to be some form of discouragement for constantly 6 dicing I Win buttons in the magic phase. Many methods have been suggested, but the two I like are just plain yanking throne of vines from the game and having a d6 table where you add the number of dice used to cast so the really nasty miscasts happen only on big tosses with frequency.

Shooting-
Light shooting is mostly too weak in this game and when the Dark Elves get the Jailhouse Broomstick treatment with the nerf bat next month, it will be massively too weak. Without a major price overhaul, the general effectiveness of smaller shooting units needs to be tweaked up a bit. I think the best thing would be to get rid of the move penalty for shooting, as it exists now (and then let Wood Elves ignore the range penalty), though this would perhaps make Skink Blowpipes a bit too murderous. And I say this as someone who hates the shooting phase.

On the other end of the spectrum, Cannons are rendering an entire class of unit mostly unplayable and need adjustment, most likely by making them somewhat less of the laser guided monster rapers that they presently are. My honest fix for them is a BS based roll and if you flub it, the initial shot doubles its distance. It would make cover mean a little to monsters and stop the whole "I vaporized your centerpiece model because I can see its foot on turn one" thing.

Halbeard
04-09-2013, 01:03
I think that the focus on big armies with a load of infantery that costs a lot, combined with prices that rises all the time makes it hard to attract new people. Another factor is that it you can not by bits anymore, this makes it harder to really use ones creativity. If it goes on, you soon end up with pre-assambled, pre-painted models :(
They should try to scale it down, I used to play 1500 - 2000pts. Now it seems like everybody wants to play 2500pts. Throw away all the monsters. And go back to a more 6ed playstyle. That was the peak IMO.

Heafstaag
04-09-2013, 01:38
Its not 7th.

outbreak
04-09-2013, 01:49
Its not 7th.

+1

I still believe the main issue with 7th was a lot more to do with the individual army books issues rather than the whole rule set, sure it needed smoothing out in places and maybe the random charge helps that, but on the whole they've changed too much for me.

The one big plus for 8th is the individual books, for casual play without min maxing and exploiting thingsall the new books have a shot at winning which was the biggest issue in 7th I thought.

Heafstaag
04-09-2013, 02:09
I will also add pre measuring. I find it unsporting and takes an element of skill out of the game.

hardyworld
04-09-2013, 02:11
Shooting-
Light shooting is mostly too weak in this game and when the Dark Elves get the Jailhouse Broomstick treatment with the nerf bat next month, it will be massively too weak. Without a major price overhaul, the general effectiveness of smaller shooting units needs to be tweaked up a bit. I think the best thing would be to get rid of the move penalty for shooting, as it exists now (and then let Wood Elves ignore the range penalty), though this would perhaps make Skink Blowpipes a bit too murderous. And I say this as someone who hates the shooting phase.
Would a simpler (and possibly better) way to accomplish a similar thing be: keep the moving & shooting modifier (-1 to hit), but replace the the long range modifier (-1 to hit) with a close ranger modifier (+1 to hit). Might help typical shooting too much, but maybe not. There would be no incentive to move into close range, but you still have the moving modifier when you move your shooters back and continue to shoot at the enemy.

Maoriboy007
04-09-2013, 02:18
Actually, they did nail it. 8th edition is the best one to date.Personally I think its about on par with 6th edition. Both made radical changes to the system. While some of the changes were to the betterment of the game , others were real headscratchers. Where 8th stands out is that the head scratchers were a) almost self evident from the very beginning and b) ranged from completely unnecessary to heavy handed.
It made some good changes too, there was/is real potential for a Dynamic game now.


It has some issues but at the end of the day it is the pricing that people have a hard time swallowing.
The Price of the game has always been an issue , Warhammer is a game that has always required a considerable investment in time and money, as most hobbies and to some extent we have to accept that.
As far as gripes go the same ones seem to consistently come up
Disruption Steadfast mechanic
Magic , specifically uberspells
Cannons and Line of Sight
Random Charge distances, although I personally like the rule

My personal Gripe would probably be initiative going before chargers, it seems a little counter productive to game balance.


I hope they keep most of the rules the same as they have now. Well I hope they change the right ones anyway...

m1acca1551
04-09-2013, 02:20
I do like 8th, it has been a massive step in the right direction however it has so flaws but so does every game.

Most of the following I don't have to go into detail
- magic
- terrain
- deathstars
- prohibitive starting cost for new players

On the issue of cost I have seen a large number of older veteran players returning to the game, people who sat out the farce that was 7th, and they bring some really unique old school armies with them. However on the other hand there have been far fewer new bloods entering the game, which is generally based on the starting cost especially here in Australia.

- 40k... GW simply has more success with its other system in terms of attracting new players, so they do tend to focus more on this system wether intentional or merely perceived. Perception is reality.

So 8th edition is a great game, 9th could be grand but only if the iron out the flaws of 8th but for the game to really grow and expand over what it is, the cost needs to be addressed.

outbreak
04-09-2013, 02:32
I do like 8th, it has been a massive step in the right direction however it has so flaws but so does every game.

Most of the following I don't have to go into detail
- magic
- terrain
- deathstars
- prohibitive starting cost for new players

On the issue of cost I have seen a large number of older veteran players returning to the game, people who sat out the farce that was 7th, and they bring some really unique old school armies with them. However on the other hand there have been far fewer new bloods entering the game, which is generally based on the starting cost especially here in Australia.

- 40k... GW simply has more success with its other system in terms of attracting new players, so they do tend to focus more on this system wether intentional or merely perceived. Perception is reality.

So 8th edition is a great game, 9th could be grand but only if the iron out the flaws of 8th but for the game to really grow and expand over what it is, the cost needs to be addressed.

the only older gamers I've seen come back who didn't play 7th were the people who left for 40k but hated the new rule set for that so switched back to fantasy

IcedCrow
04-09-2013, 03:27
There is no skill in guessing ranges. Sorry. I can guess within an inch from across the room every time. That does not make me skilled. Having decent spatial and depth perception is not a game skill. With battle boards out, a trained cat can guess ranges now. It needed to die in a fire long ago... can't count how many times at a tournament I'd have guys:

* measuring their arm before the game to note the distance from elbow to forefinger and then innocently 'lay their arm across the table'
* pre measure points on the table to grid out the table
* laser guided warmachines next to each other where one would guess, and then after the tape came out would know the exact range for everything else

It was malarchy. Period.

Lets not forget the most assanine invention of 7th edition ... the 1/8" dance where battle lines woudl race forward... and then shuffle around each other until one got within an 8th of an inch away and would be charged. Talk about removing the immersion factor, it died every time the 1/8" shuffle began and that was every game.

7th edition: die in a fire. Not just the books. The whole mechanics of combat can die in a fire. The mechanics of 7th edition were the farthest from creating any real semblence of a battle that I can think of. It encouraged MSU cavalry lines. I don't remember reading a lot of battles, historical or fantasy, that were nothing but horse lines charging into each other. Why?

* he who strikes first goes first
* no step up means you just have to kill the first rank
* 1/8" dance crap

The only worse edition was 5th and that was because battles were not battles there either. They were D&D scenarios where your uber daddy lord would bring his buddies and the token cavalry unit to cheer him on while he wrecked face on his emperor dragon while Gringo the One Nutted Sorcerer with the Book of Ashur would be casting High Magic through the Forbidden Rod over and over again.

No thanks. You can keep your 7th edition. I torched my book when 8th came out and brought my models back out after a three year hiatus because of that imbecilic edition.

As to pricing... people have been howling about prices since the 90s. I have become deaf to that complaint now. Teens spend hundreds of dollars on xbox games and are going to be shelling $400 for the new xbox or PS4 when it comes out. I don't see the issue with warhammer which is also a luxury item costing the same as a console and video games. People want something for nothing. There are dozens of ways to get into the hobby without spending your soul. I know this because we have new players regularly getting involved and buying new armies and they don't do it retail price. The "GW IS TOO EXPENSIVE" rant has become probably the biggest joke rant on the internet EVAH.

My drums cost me over $10,000. My guitar is worth several full armies. Music is a hobby of mine.
My SCA armor cost me two full armies. SCA is a hobby of mine.
Golf costs me two full armies.
My xbox and games cost me several armies over.
My PC costs me several armies over.

Pricing. Its a hobby. Its a luxury. They are expensive. Warhammer is my least expensive hobby. I see a lot of people whine about prices but have no issue shelling out for several new xbox / ps3 games a month for games that they play for a couple weeks / a month at most on average.

As to 40k - its got guns, explosions, tanks, and space marines. This is the era of Halo, Modern Warfare, Splinter Cell, etc...

Quite honestly, I give less than two rat farts about the system I play in being more popular or less popular than yours. I care that I can play in a narrative way, that I'm not having to compete for the world championship every game, and that I am enjoying myself both in the game, and via the hobby aspect of painting. When that stops, I stop the hobby, and disappear from the forums as I turn my attention to other things that I am involved in.

eagletsi1
04-09-2013, 03:35
I agree with some others. The way the number of dice are rolled in the magic phase. I would say something like you can roll a max # of dice for your level. So a Level 4 could only roll 4 max dice, Like wise the max dice for dispel is 5. Or maybe just slightly change it so every miscast causes the following, you cannot cast spells with this wizard next turn while he recovers, as well a roll on the miscast table.

Mike3791
04-09-2013, 04:57
Icedcrow, that assessment has hilarious, I want to print it out and hang it on my fridge. However popularity does matter, in terms of sales for the company and also for gamers to have people to play against. I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the U.S. (Massachusetts and California), fantasy games are tough to come by.

Confessor_Atol
04-09-2013, 05:18
Well said icedcrow. I think you've won this thread.

Mike3791
04-09-2013, 05:54
Indeed, I'd also like to point out that the "stepping up" rule saved the game. From a very basic enjoyment level, its nice to have every model being able to attack back in combat. Buying a box of goblins or rats just for the sole purpose of dying and/or providing combat res was a HUGE TURNOFF for a lot of new player prospects. Initiative and charges don't nearly dominate the game like they used to.. which is a very good thing.

DaemonReign
04-09-2013, 06:12
That has nothing to do with 8th edition.

:rolleyes:
Right well for the core-rules I have really minor gripes most of which have been dealt with upthread already:
Stat test or die spells spread out on all stats would be nice. Miscast-table should be D6+Power Dice used. Boosted RiP-spells should retain their boosted casting value in subsequent magic phases for the purpose of dispelling. Steadfast should Count aggregate ranks per combat not merely the 'deepest' unit per combat. Large Targets should have an 'innate rank' or alternatively Steadfast for units should 'start' with the second rank (like Rank Bonus). Templates should hit monster on 1-4, rider on 5 and both on a 6 (or something like that just as long as it's not automatically both!). Terror should give a ld-penalty for enemies trying to pass their Fear-check (or something else to make Terror 'mean something' in this day and age). Make cannons scatter 1-3" on the first Bounce and suddenly people would be aiming at the kind of targets that a mideaval cannon could arguably be aimed at (i.e. it should be a freak-occurance to hit a specific 20/25mm base model, a 50-50 shot on a 50mm model, but not much harder than it is now to hit Buildings or units).
Speaking of Buildings the rules for Indoor-combat could really do with some fleshing out.

Stuff like that. Nothing major. I'm a big fan of 8th my biggest fear about 9th is that they'll change things too much.

Captain Collius
04-09-2013, 06:16
Frankly, Cavalry is perfectly fine, MSU and MMU do not require help to beat hordes (although they are not just straight push model forwards) and flank charges are already deadly enough. And, sincerely, magic isn't that much of a gamewinner as most people here make you think. If anything, 6-dicing is bad because it is boring.

Bravo sir.
This is the unspoken truth six dicing kill spells is quite frankly no fun every time I see someone playing death against my lizards I sigh and prepare for the cycle to repeat itself.

8th is not perfect but as long as you have no tfg's it is quite enjoyable.

Dark Aly
04-09-2013, 08:02
The reason I have been losing interest in warhammer recently (40k too) is because I feel that it has lost some character. In 4th/5th ed the game itself wasn't as good as 8th imho but it was a lot less grim and dark and more humour and amusing stories were in the books. The armies were also more colourful in the 'eavy metal pages and so it had a slight cartoonish quality which I liked. Now it seems to be all about heroic last stands against the all consuming inevitable darkness and while this is more epic, it is a lot less fun for me.

I mostly play necromunda, gorkamorka, x-wing, blood bowl and aquanautica imperialis (a game by easy E from this very forum) now because they are lot more fun.

Lord Solar Plexus
04-09-2013, 08:52
1k games are very satisfying IMO. Don't see what's wrong with them. You don't get the full spectrum (fully mech/flyer/bikes/scoutswhatever) with a 40k starter box either. I mean we started with something like 20 Orks, 20 Grots and 20 Marines and it was good fun...then the Wargear and CI books continually kept drawing us in to try out more. Lasguns, how cool! Arbites shotguns, power mauls, ICV's, the sky was the limit.



3) How magic dice generation works. It works OK, but I prefered the 7th Ed. model.


With its crass discrepancies? Why?



6) How Steadfast works. I win combat by 11 because my monsters did awesome in combat, but the ranked unit stays because they have 5 guys left?


Yes, elementary. The point people don't get is that this unit still has *a formation*, and that's the most important aspect, much more important than whether their weapons are half a metre longer or the tip is a bit hooked, or their armour is curved. It actually IS a unit, not some randomly assembled guys.



7) Cavalry are mostly useless.


Nothing could be further from the truth. This assessment only speaks of great ignorance and disingenuity. *Some* cavalry is useless but not because of its unit type. People take Hexwraiths, Inner Circle Knights, Silverhelms, Reavers, Wolfriders, Black Knights, Dark Riders and Outriders. I've also have used Chaos Knights and Marauder Horse to very good effect, while others use small Empire vanilla Knight units, so where exactly does that utterly absurd perception come from?



9) Specific army options that are too good to be in the game. Tzeench WoC mounted character that is unkillable. DE unkillable character. HE Dragon Banner. Etc.


You're deep into wishlisting territory, and drifting more and more off topic here. "Too good" options have been a part of WFB since the very first edition, so they cannot reasonably be a gripe with this one or explain the game's downfall now. They are a part of 40k, and have always been. It doesn't explain why one gripes about WFB, or why one choses an alternative system with the same pitfalls. Same goes for 8) & 10) - same story.


:rolleyes:
Right well for the core-rules I have really minor gripes most of which have been dealt with upthread already:


With that program, I would immediately vote you for CO. Or Lead Developer, or whoever gets to execute stuff. Really good ideas.

Andy p
04-09-2013, 08:55
To be fair the only cavalry I have found fairly useless is the Tomb King's horsemen, who would make great chaff if not for the fact that they cannot march nor flee

SimaoSegunda
04-09-2013, 11:22
I wish Terror could take away steadfast. That would make me start to risk my Wyvern again against all those cannons and bolt throwers.

Urgat
04-09-2013, 12:22
My drums cost me over $10,000. My guitar is worth several full armies. Music is a hobby of mine.
My SCA armor cost me two full armies. SCA is a hobby of mine.
Golf costs me two full armies.
My xbox and games cost me several armies over.
My PC costs me several armies over.

It's a bit different. Originally, people approach Warhammer as a game, not a hobby. You expect to spend thousands if you play drums. A PC isn't just a gaming station, it's a commodity that you use all the time, for a massive amount of reasons. A console, right, it's games. It's not a niche market though, it requires little involvement, you plug and play, it's a massive market with thousands of customers, the prices are a result of that success, contrary to GW stuff. A kid confronted to the choice of buying two boxes of forsakens or the latest Call of Duty? I don't thin he'll start Warhammer, honestly. Back then, I started Warhammer because I could afford it. Nowadays, my army would be somewhat difficult to build with retail prices. I honestly don't think price problems is a joke rant. you're right, even back then, people were complaining about prices (not nearly as much though, let's be honest. It was cheaper, and it was almost 100% metal. People have that perception that metal should cost more, even if the reality, for GW, is different), but GW prices don't exactly follow inflation curves. Well they do I guess, but with an exponential factor attached to them. Wehn people first approach Warhammer, they see it as a game, not a luxury hobby. No doubt a lot of parents came in a GW store with their kids, saw the prices and left right away. It certainly wasn't as severe back in the days. If Warhammer regiments were made in Bones material like Reaper's new stuff (and costed that way), I'm sure people wouldn't be half as reluctent to get in. Whatever your reasoning, denying that cost is a factor is just denying the truth. There's things I dream of having (an airbrush, for example), and I won't buy it for now because even if I could afford it, it's too expensive and it wouldn't be a sensible purchase. Same goes with everything, and Warhammer is no different.

IcedCrow
04-09-2013, 13:24
Icedcrow, that assessment has hilarious, I want to print it out and hang it on my fridge. However popularity does matter, in terms of sales for the company and also for gamers to have people to play against. I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the U.S. (Massachusetts and California), fantasy games are tough to come by.

I live in the US. Where I am at, fantasy was also struggling. It took a few years of promotion but we now have a very strong fantasy group in our region. The key was expanding the hobby away from straight tournaments and exploring other aspects like campaigning.

When I say I don't care about the popularity I'm saying as long as I have a couple guys to play against I'm fine. Its easy to let the self perpetuation of "well its not popular so I won't bother" destroy the game because then everyone's doing that.

My campaign group started at five people. Then grew to eight. Now its up to over thirty. If people see others playing, they are going to be interested. That's the bottom line. It takes some organization and promotion, but you only need a handful of people. It seems in my opinion that in many areas the only thing going on are tournaments, and while that's good and well, that burns you out after a while. The hobby has so much more to offer.


people approach Warhammer as a game, not a hobby

This is very true.

Urgat
04-09-2013, 14:59
I live in the US. Where I am at, fantasy was also struggling. It took a few years of promotion but we now have a very strong fantasy group in our region. The key was expanding the hobby away from straight tournaments and exploring other aspects like campaigning.

The key, I think, is that the demographic which (whom? that? Hargh, English) enjoys 8th ed is just different than the one that enjoyed 7th ed. I don't think it would be any lower... if the base had actually existed before. 7th ed had no problem because it followed from 6th ed, it was the same kind of gameplay after all, so it already had its playerbase. I honestly don't know how 6th ed started, but it was such a big departure from 4th/5th ed that it can't really be compared anyway. 8th ed, by comparison, is still very close to 7th ed, all things considered. Different in many ways that are enough to , but still somewhat close enough that the people who used to like 7th ed have plenty of bases for comparison. 8th ed, therefore, pissed off the people who did enjoy 7th, but there's factors (whatever factors we may agree on, for me it's prices) that slow down the renewal of the player base that would enjoy 8th ed otherwise.

IcedCrow
04-09-2013, 15:14
That is also true, though we have a lot of guys in our campaign that were 7th editioners as well. (I started with 5th, happily moved into 6th and 7th wasn't bad in the beginning but after two years of everyone running cav lines and doing the 1/8 shuffle I kind of needed to put it away for a while).

However there were a lot of people that quit upon 8th's release because 8th has more random elements in it, which was not conducive to a sterile, balanced tournament environment (and 6th ed 40k followed suit with similar results) and it brought people who had quit before back. So I definitely see different faces because the two editions definitely cater to two different playstyles.

RTGamer
04-09-2013, 15:20
I Love 8th edition it is the most fun I have had in the 15 years I have been playing it.

I do dislike the cannon bouncing around monsters and the fact that charging doesn't give you too much of an advantage. I think a boost to initiative ont he charge would help this to show the chargers coming in. Maybe +3 and then it would be the most fun.

Have bneen running a LVL 4for tournaments but most of the time I run no magic and it makes not that much difference.

ADIT: this could just be my "Meta" but lets face it that's what we all face. (the local meta not my meta.)

arthurfallz
04-09-2013, 15:21
Why aren't people playing 8th seems to be the current drift to this thread. If so, I would say it is not a critical rules problem. It's options. And Icedcrow touched on it, though I do believe the cost of the miniatures and books factors into consideration of those options. There have been several alternatives to GW over the years for miniature games (Battletech was the rage when I was young, go Steiner!), but Warmachine has really taken off in terms of popularity. The company is run very different from GW, and picks up on several customer relation strategies that GW is seemingly lacking in.

Lets be a newbie walking into a FLGS (the GW store is a rare bird in North America). He looks around, and sees one of several games being played in the store.

1) Magic the Gathering
2) Warhammer
3) Warmachine
4) a LCG like Netrunner or something
5) X-Wing and the like of new wave mini games

They are all fun looking. And then you put down the costs of building armies. GW comes out as the most expensive, across the board. The question is: is the fun of GW games worth the premium? Do they do more? Do they look better? Do they play better? No. They aren't worse, they are on the same level of fun, satisfaction, etc. So, I will say that the reason 8th edition is struggling is not because it's 8th edition, it's because GW makes it.

Shadeseraph
04-09-2013, 15:23
:rolleyes:
Right well for the core-rules I have really minor gripes most of which have been dealt with upthread already:

[...]

Stuff like that. Nothing major. I'm a big fan of 8th my biggest fear about 9th is that they'll change things too much.

Frankly, these are some of the better suggestions I've seen. Bravo.

Theocracity
04-09-2013, 15:50
Why aren't people playing 8th seems to be the current drift to this thread. If so, I would say it is not a critical rules problem. It's options. And Icedcrow touched on it, though I do believe the cost of the miniatures and books factors into consideration of those options. There have been several alternatives to GW over the years for miniature games (Battletech was the rage when I was young, go Steiner!), but Warmachine has really taken off in terms of popularity. The company is run very different from GW, and picks up on several customer relation strategies that GW is seemingly lacking in.

Lets be a newbie walking into a FLGS (the GW store is a rare bird in North America). He looks around, and sees one of several games being played in the store.

1) Magic the Gathering
2) Warhammer
3) Warmachine
4) a LCG like Netrunner or something
5) X-Wing and the like of new wave mini games

They are all fun looking. And then you put down the costs of building armies. GW comes out as the most expensive, across the board. The question is: is the fun of GW games worth the premium? Do they do more? Do they look better? Do they play better? No. They aren't worse, they are on the same level of fun, satisfaction, etc. So, I will say that the reason 8th edition is struggling is not because it's 8th edition, it's because GW makes it.

And interest in each game's respective background, art styles, culture, creative hobby opportunities, look on the table or personal relationships with the people playing have nothing to do with this player's decision, right? Just a cold, hard calculation that uninitiated newbies make when entering a store: "Despite knowing nothing about these games, I can accurately ascertain that they all have equivalent Universal Potential Fun values. Based on this equation I will add up the cost of all kits I expect to purchase and rationally choose the system with the highest Fun to Cost ratio."

I'm being snarky here, but I really don't think that new players make decisions based on the same kind information that jaded veterans do. If a new player has interest in Warhammer and is nurtured in a respectful, involved environment it might not matter how much it costs. It's different for every person, obviously - for example, I don't care if Magic costs less than Warhammer, I don't enjoy it's playstyle, look or culture.

SSquirrel
04-09-2013, 16:43
If it goes on, you soon end up with pre-assambled, pre-painted models :(


I'll be honest, the painting has always been one of the biggest things that intimidated me about Warhammer. If there had been an option for pre-painted models in Warhammer, I would have been playing YEARS ago. As is, I'm only looking to start now b/c a GW store opened up locally recently and I found there are a lot of Fantasy players here in Louisville. Plus my daughters are old enough I can get them involved helping me do things like paint and decorate bases, so that's awesome

IcedCrow
04-09-2013, 16:53
Louisville FTW lol

SSquirrel
04-09-2013, 17:11
Louisville FTW lol

Indeed. Having to wait to start till I have a new job sucks, but I've been very entertained w/the FB group and keeping up w/how the campaign has been going. Everyone I've met so far has been cool and lots of questions have been answered. I still worry my painting is going to suck, but I'm not letting that stand in my way anymore :)

IcedCrow
04-09-2013, 18:06
Pah. Dude, even crap painting is 1000x better than grey plastic. You also have to start somewhere. My first models were atrocious. You know the 40k thread going now in the fb group about the army cybil is selling? That's my first 40k army. The paint job on a lot of those guys is also lulz.

You get better over time. And if painting is not your thing there are ways to do quick and dirty and done. I lucked into actually liking painting so its something I do daily and have been doing for the better part of 15 years now, but it takes time and no one is going to judge your painting. I have never once seen anyone judge someone's paint job before. This will give you time as we go into our 40k break in january to get a force together too for next year :D

SSquirrel
04-09-2013, 18:45
Pah. Dude, even crap painting is 1000x better than grey plastic. You also have to start somewhere. My first models were atrocious. You know the 40k thread going now in the fb group about the army cybil is selling? That's my first 40k army. The paint job on a lot of those guys is also lulz.

You get better over time. And if painting is not your thing there are ways to do quick and dirty and done. I lucked into actually liking painting so its something I do daily and have been doing for the better part of 15 years now, but it takes time and no one is going to judge your painting. I have never once seen anyone judge someone's paint job before. This will give you time as we go into our 40k break in january to get a force together too for next year :D

Yeah cuz I have no interest in 40k heh. At least part of my Skaven army will look really good, b/c one of my best friends is a good artist and he's painting an IoB set for me heh. I'm actually going to pick up the starter kit w/those 5 High Elves in it and have my wife take a shot at that. If she does a good job on them I'm totally going to get her to paint for me :)

Charistoph
04-09-2013, 19:21
I don't play Fantasy, largely because I can't decide on which army to field, but I talk to a lot of the guys who do or did. Here are their biggest gripes:

*) Steadfast. Impossible to break short of grinding the unit down. Maybe if Monsters counted as having a Rank size again, or Steadfast required more of a difference between units...

*) Random Charge Range. Seriously, Dwarfs are the greatest preportional runners being able to charge 5 times faster than they walk. 2M+D6 would have been better than M+2D6.

*) Magic Lores. No complaints about magic as a mechanic, even 6 dicing a spell. It's what certain spells DID when 6 dicing them that was the complaint.

IcedCrow
04-09-2013, 19:37
I'll respond with my experience

* steadfast. Impossible to break. This is quite simply not true with the exception of things like slaves which are leadership 10. Most units are leadership 7 or 8. If there is a leadership booster around, part of the strategy should be to kill it. And the BSB to prevent the reroll. With slaves you have to try to remove rank bonus. Slaves are a broken element of the game currently IMO in a book that needs brought inline with the rest of the books.

Random charge range - you either like it or you hate it. I love it. I hated static charging. Static charging bored the hell out of me. It was one of the originators of the 1/8" shuffle of the last edition. The current system is fine. It creates situations where you may fail and you can't bank everything on tactics always working 100% like they used to. It forces risk mitigation. Quite honestly if they ever went back to static charges, I'd probably leave the game. 2M+D6 charging shrinks the random factor to make it almost a given again. No thanks. That's all opinion on my part though.

DeathGlam
04-09-2013, 20:30
Sadly not had much chance to play 8th(changing soon i hope) but from what i have played it has got me to love Fantasy again, as the last edition especially destroyed me ever wanting to play, mostly due to the shuffle tactic mentioned above.

sulla
04-09-2013, 20:33
My biggest gripe is the lackluster battle scenarios. I think they were trying to make armies more balanced but the battles don't really reward that.

There are a lot of niggles though, but I still probably think it's a more solid foundation for a game than 6th/7th were.

Charistoph
04-09-2013, 21:21
I'll respond with my experience
And I'll reiterate that these are the gripes I hear most often, as I don't have an army to judge with.


* steadfast. Impossible to break. This is quite simply not true with the exception of things like slaves which are leadership 10. Most units are leadership 7 or 8. If there is a leadership booster around, part of the strategy should be to kill it. And the BSB to prevent the reroll. With slaves you have to try to remove rank bonus. Slaves are a broken element of the game currently IMO in a book that needs brought inline with the rest of the books.
And yet, Steadfst itself is almost impossible to break without grinding a unit down.

True, their main complaints are about getting a Steadfast unit to Break, but that's partly due to the ease it's handed out.

I do believe it has a place, but when 49 man unit doesn't have it because they are fighting a 50 man unit, it's a little much.


Random charge range - you either like it or you hate it. I love it. I hated static charging. Static charging bored the hell out of me. It was one of the originators of the 1/8" shuffle of the last edition. The current system is fine. It creates situations where you may fail and you can't bank everything on tactics always working 100% like they used to. It forces risk mitigation. Quite honestly if they ever went back to static charges, I'd probably leave the game. 2M+D6 charging shrinks the random factor to make it almost a given again. No thanks. That's all opinion on my part though.
As you said, it's a matter of taste. Static charge ranges do make for a boring game, agreed, but the current standard of M+2D6 is a little too much.

My gripes with 8th is that they took the problems with 7th and hit them on a pendulum swing with a train and taking things too far and not limiting them properly and creating a new list of issues. And that list I provided are good examples of those things.

DaemonReign
04-09-2013, 21:25
With that program, I would immediately vote you for CO. Or Lead Developer, or whoever gets to execute stuff. Really good ideas.

Frankly, these are some of the better suggestions I've seen. Bravo.

It's awfully nice that you'd say that. :)
Alas, I think the changes I suggested are 'too small' for a 'new edition' thus falling on their own premise.
Still, I really appreciate your response.

yabbadabba
04-09-2013, 22:45
There is a huge amount you can add to the game, in an extended version, that could really add depth and colour.

For instance a unit that is pursued cannot be wiped out by a smaller, pursuing unit. Instead the pursuing unit cause automatic hist and wounds to the equivalent of the number of attacks it has, and the fleeing unit has to make basic saves. An Orc boss on an enraged pig shouldn't really be able to wipe out a fleeing 50 slave unit. There should also be a push back combat result, where a large unit that loses to a smaller, non-psychology test inducing unit doesn't break when it fails its Ld test but is pushed back and the winning unit is counted as charging for the next round.

Another option with steadfast is to add the unit's rank bonus to the Ld, up to a maximum of 10. This could really represent the weight of numbers idea, and makes . Flank/Rear charges would have that bonus - flank and rear removing it altogether. If you wanted to push it further, the unit could then use whatever is highest - the Ld of the unit + bonuses or the Ld of the character in the unit. Steadfast is a great idea for weaker units in a game where there are some real damage causers.

I am not overly bothered by the big 6 spells, but I would probably like to see the miscast chart become slightly more dangerous to the caster.

Brain's gone dead. I had a mental list somewhere.

Grammaticus Bane
04-09-2013, 23:12
Another option with steadfast is to add the unit's rank bonus to the Ld, up to a maximum of 10. This could really represent the weight of numbers idea, and makes . Flank/Rear charges would have that bonus - flank and rear removing it altogether. If you wanted to push it further, the unit could then use whatever is highest - the Ld of the unit + bonuses or the Ld of the character in the unit. Steadfast is a great idea for weaker units in a game where there are some real damage causers.


That is essentially Skaven's Strength In Numbers rule.

Urgat
04-09-2013, 23:23
For instance a unit that is pursued cannot be wiped out by a smaller, pursuing unit. Instead the pursuing unit cause automatic hist and wounds to the equivalent of the number of attacks it has, and the fleeing unit has to make basic saves. An Orc boss on an enraged pig shouldn't really be able to wipe out a fleeing 50 slave unit.

It doesn't bother me. I see it more as the routed unit being scattered, rather than being wiped out.

kylek2235
04-09-2013, 23:40
Things I don't like:

1. The ruleset encourages deathstar unit builds (steadfast being too powerful, stubborn being to easy to achieve) of which the balance is....
2. ....the super #6 spells!
3. Not having modifiers on the miscast chart. A character throwing 6 dice at a spell should have a good chance at getting sucked in the warp, while a wizard throwing 2 dice should be virtually immune from the possibility. I'm not a fan of the throw six dice at a single spell "strategy"
4. The scenarios are stupid and in no way balance out the game
5. TLOS
6. Mysterious terrain

Those are mine, and they're not uncommon complaints. Overall, I like 8th, but I've found every edition going back to 4th to be fun in its own unique way.

Maoriboy007
05-09-2013, 00:54
* steadfast. Impossible to break. This is quite simply not true with the exception of things like slaves which are leadership 10. Most units are leadership 7 or 8...Steadfast is simply too concrete right now. While I like the concept of steadfast, disruption (different from flanking) or aggregate ranks should affect it however, I guarantee it would make the game more dynamic and challenging.

* If there is a leadership booster around, part of the strategy should be to kill it. And the BSB to prevent the reroll... Much, much easier said than done , unless your opponent is completely asleep.

*Random charge range - you either like it or you hate it. I love it...Agreed, personally I like it for the same reasons you do

*I hated static charging. Static charging bored the hell out of me. It was one of the originators of the 1/8" shuffle of the last edition..True, the problems I have with charging now have more to do with initiative overriding striking order and disruption.

(in regards to the 7th ed magic system)With its crass discrepancies? Why? The IF / Miscast mechanic was better , spells generally didn't decide the game single handed and Magic Resistance actually did something. The current spells were in the right direction , but simply a step to far IMO. Insta-kill spells certainly need to die a well deserved death as soon as Gateway reared its ugly head, not spread throughout the game

Nothing could be further from the truth. This assessment only speaks of great ignorance and disingenuity. *Some* cavalry is useless but not because of its unit type. People take Hexwraiths, Inner Circle Knights, Silverhelms, Reavers, Wolfriders, Black Knights, Dark Riders and Outriders. I've also have used Chaos Knights and Marauder Horse to very good effect, while others use small Empire vanilla Knight units, so where exactly does that utterly absurd perception come from? While I agree that Cavalry are not useless, Heavier Cavalry seems to be mostly overpriced for their speed. Striking in initiative hurt them more than necessary after being fixed by the new step up rules, if chargers struck first in inititave again the step up rules would keep cavalry from reaching their previous levels of brokenness while making them worth their cost.

There is no skill in guessing ranges. Sorry. I can guess within an inch from across the room every time. That does not make me skilled. Having decent spatial and depth perception is not a game skill.
With battle boards out, a trained cat can guess ranges now. It needed to die in a fire long ago.... While I don't have a problem with pre-measuring outside of war machines, I do think its something more of a skill. You tend to get batter at guess ranges the more you practice, calculating the odds of making a random charge or any other odds is pretty similar. I don't have a problem with either.

can't count how many times at a tournament I'd have guys:
* measuring their arm before the game to note the distance from elbow to forefinger and then innocently 'lay their arm across the table'
* pre measure points on the table to grid out the table
* laser guided warmachines next to each other where one would guess, and then after the tape came out would know the exact range for everything else
It was malarchy. Period. Dickishness happens. Some people just need a solid kick in the nads, just because there is premeasuring now doesn't mean there aren't d!ck$ in the game anymore, they just find different ways of being nads.

7th edition: die in a fire. Not just the books. The whole mechanics of combat can die in a fire. The mechanics of 7th edition were the farthest from creating any real semblence of a battle that I can think of. It encouraged MSU cavalry lines. I don't remember reading a lot of battles, historical or fantasy, that were nothing but horse lines charging into each other. Why? IMO the sins of 7th were they did not improve on the decent edition of 6th but made it worse. Still much of the system actually worked, but it was more the imbalanced army books that killed the edition, as is pretty evident that 7th ed books are still held up or have to be specifically excluded when discussing overpowered examples even in the current game.

* he who strikes first goes first
* no step up means you just have to kill the first rank
* 1/8" dance crap Of these three deadly sins only the second two have really changed, and to be honest for the better IMO, the changes of Step up and Random charging are ones I wouldn't take out in 9th.

*The only worse edition was 5th and that was because battles were not battles there either. They were D&D scenarios where your uber daddy lord would bring his buddies and the token cavalry unit to cheer him on while he wrecked face on his emperor dragon while Gringo the One Nutted Sorcerer with the Book of Ashur would be casting High Magic through the Forbidden Rod over and over again. Hilarious :D still it was pretty epic and could be as much fun as it was stupid....

* No thanks. You can keep your 7th edition. I torched my book when 8th came out and brought my models back out after a three year hiatus because of that imbecilic edition.*shrug* and some people did pretty much the same for 8th. I like warhammer and want to stick around and play. A few tweaks would make the game more playable for even more people I reckon without alienating the current crown either, and I can't see that being a bad thing.

* As to pricing... people have been howling about prices since the 90s. .......Pricing. Its a hobby. Its a luxury. They are expensive..I've pretty much said the same thing myself, however that isn't an approval for extortionate prices though, GW does seem to be a bit silly about that at times.

IcedCrow
05-09-2013, 01:16
:D on a side note, my girlfriend has dual citizenships in new zealand and here and we are discussing relocating there in a couple of years.

Maoriboy007
05-09-2013, 01:41
:D on a side note, my girlfriend has dual citizenships in new zealand and here and we are discussing relocating there in a couple of years.You're Mad! MAD I tell you....! Welcome to the Alabama of the South Pacific and develop an appreciation for rugby (I kid! , I kid!) ;)

IcedCrow
05-09-2013, 01:58
I told her my little plastic men were cost like twice as much over there though :(

Maoriboy007
05-09-2013, 05:15
I told her my little plastic men were cost like twice as much over there though :(the costs over here might actually make you gripe over GW prices... :cries:

Lord Solar Plexus
05-09-2013, 08:30
And yet, Steadfst itself is almost impossible to break without grinding a unit down.

True, their main complaints are about getting a Steadfast unit to Break, but that's partly due to the ease it's handed out.

I do believe it has a place, but when 49 man unit doesn't have it because they are fighting a 50 man unit, it's a little much.


Oh man. Sorry to say that but the contradictions here are pretty blindingly obvious. Claim 1: Units cannot be broken, there's no way. Claim 2: It only takes a single cheapo core model to break units, the ease is unrealistic! Claim 3: Everyone and his dog get SF - so both sides in a fight (can easily) have it? Are you sure? If it's so easy to get, the it's easy to break - your opponent obviously won't have SF...that's a veritable mess.

Urgat
05-09-2013, 09:47
While I don't have a problem with pre-measuring outside of war machines, I do think its something more of a skill. You tend to get batter at guess ranges the more you practice, calculating the odds of making a random charge or any other odds is pretty similar. I don't have a problem with either.

It's obviously a skill, being able to do that, I don't think it's what Icedcrow meant. The point is (to me) that's not a skill that should be necessary for a dice game. We don't swing the swords or loose the arrows ourselves, do we? Why did we need to aim the freaken warmachines? It was absurd: either the guy couldn't guess, and it wasted his warmachines, or he could, and it had no purpose since he would hit any time. There was no point besides punishing the guy who couldn't. That's one massive good riddance. I'll see it back happily the day I'm allowed to headbutt my opponent instead of rolling dice to see if my orcs hit in melee. Calculating the odds, if I ever feel the need to do that, I'll get a spreadsheet and be done with it, I won't need any skill for that, trust me.

Avian
05-09-2013, 10:07
The thing about actually guessing with war machines was that it was more FUN. Some of my most memorable moments playing this game involves spectacularly good or bad guesses.

Zustiur
05-09-2013, 10:11
Speaking for myself, I never got into fantasy for one key reason: None of my friends have ever played it.
I'd like to play it. I'd even re-budget to get the minis (although perhaps I'd buy a pre-painted army since time seems to be my issue at the moment). But I refuse to buy into it if I'm never going to have anyone to play with, and I'm not enough of a social leader to get others into it.

Lord Solar Plexus
05-09-2013, 11:01
Things I don't like:

1. The ruleset encourages deathstar unit builds (steadfast being too powerful, stubborn being to easy to achieve) ....

No more than MSU or MMU, both of which can and will remove SF via more attacks. Deathstars have *nothing* to do with steadfast. Deathstars are designed to win. Tarpits are designed not to run, and usually SF. These are however basic troops we're talking about.

Removing or weakening steadfast will encourage even more deathstars because now they cannot be tarpitted. You're not alone in this but you really, really need to think these things through to the end. As its stands, this complaint is imprecise, empirically false and misleading.



The IF / Miscast mechanic was better , spells generally didn't decide the game single handed and Magic Resistance actually did something.


Not at all. The Big Three and their dominance were all characterized by simply winning the game with magic. Fear + outnumber and stuff was just icing, as was combat and so on. Five, six times the PD made the magic phase a monster. I think I remember MM were actually a real threat because units were often smaller.

I've never seen a spell win games. Lots of tactically applied small buffs, yes, but a #6? Not that I remember. I'm not at all against letting these die a silent death but we're actually talking about three spells at most - and every German tournament allows an LoS.

I like my Knights, so I obviously like your suggestion for making them better. :)

Kahadras
05-09-2013, 11:30
One thing I'd like to see is monsterous infantry rules toned down a bit (this in addition to laser guided cannons and insta-kill spells). If they're going to get 3 attacks per rank I really don't think they should get stomp in addition to this. I don't mind Thunderstomp as a monster doesn't generate that many attacks to begin with.


I've never seen a spell win games. Lots of tactically applied small buffs, yes, but a #6? Not that I remember

Quite a few games I've seen have been decided by a well placed spell or two but these tend to be in the form of buffs/debuffs rather than a Pit or a Dwellers. The only time I've seen a 'big' spell 'win' the game was a Purple Sun that went into the flank of a WoC army. It killed Galrauch, pretty much annihilated the big unit of Trolls standing next to him and rolled on into a unit of Chaos Knights downing a couple.

Kahadras

Urgat
05-09-2013, 11:37
The thing about actually guessing with war machines was that it was more FUN. Some of my most memorable moments playing this game involves spectacularly good or bad guesses.

Maybe it was for you, it was tedious for me. Completely out of place.

Shadeseraph
05-09-2013, 12:21
Quite a few games I've seen have been decided by a well placed spell or two but these tend to be in the form of buffs/debuffs rather than a Pit or a Dwellers. The only time I've seen a 'big' spell 'win' the game was a Purple Sun that went into the flank of a WoC army. It killed Galrauch, pretty much annihilated the big unit of Trolls standing next to him and rolled on into a unit of Chaos Knights downing a couple.

Kahadras

This tends to be the point in my own experience. And I'd say it isn't the fault of the magic phase: People tend to favor larger concentrations of points, due to point denialism, either in the form of uber characters or deathstars or just a large unit much more important than the rest of the battleline. Usually, you only need the right units (the ones that make the match more or less even) and then unbalance the game in your favor to kill that unit, as it is still quite easy to break a unit in a single round. Once the key unit is broken, the battleline dissolves, and it looks like the buff/debuff won the game: it was the difference between winning and losing the key combat, after all.

I like it that way.


Maybe it was for you, it was tedious for me. Completely out of place.

QFT

Voss
05-09-2013, 12:59
I'm starting this thread running off of the back of the 9th edition rumour thread where people began discussing the large drop in interest in warhammer fantasy since the release of 8th edition.

What do people think the biggest problems holding 8th edition back are? - Is it rules, GWs releases, armies or what?



Steadfast.

The spells, I think are easily fixable with the kind of changes you'd expect with a new edition. Especially since most of the army book spells aren't as problematic as the main lore spells. And even those are easily fixed by 1) allowing saves, b) not targeting specific stats, since those have a grossly disproportionate effect on certain armies.

boli
05-09-2013, 13:43
I've never seen a spell win games. Lots of tactically applied small buffs, yes, but a #6? Not that I remember. I'm not at all against letting these die a silent death but we're actually talking about three spells at most - and every German tournament allows an LoS.

I have: 1.5k game and a IF Dwellers caused my main unit to run off the board taking (through panic) 3 other units; all I had left was my bunker unit; the game was won on turn 1 before I had even moved a model.

WizzyWarlock
05-09-2013, 13:50
My biggest gripe is that the system changed the playability of Wood Elves so much that I'm on the edge of rage quitting. Not only that, but every time a new army book comes out the number of Monstrous Cavalry and Flaming, Magical attacks go up and up, making it even harder. I have two tournaments I'm signed up for before the end of the year, after that I think I'm going to shelve them.

Lord Solar Plexus
05-09-2013, 13:55
Sure, and I've seen a Vamp IF and kill himself, winning me the game on turn 1. The difference is: I'm not identifying that lone exotic situation as the biggest failure since Dieppe. :) It's simply not the norm, just internet hype.

By the way, ALL of these things mentioned here except SF are banned or comped in Germany, and SF's effect is somewhat toned down by unit caps. I really don't understand people who complain about this stuff and yet prefer uncomped tourneys when it's all so easily addressed.

Shadeseraph
05-09-2013, 13:55
I have: 1.5k game and a IF Dwellers caused my main unit to run off the board taking (through panic) 3 other units; all I had left was my bunker unit; the game was won on turn 1 before I had even moved a model.

Emmm... that's a problem with panic, not with the big spells. A simple spell that forced a panic test would have had the same effect.

kylek2235
05-09-2013, 15:18
No more than MSU or MMU, both of which can and will remove SF via more attacks. Deathstars have *nothing* to do with steadfast. Deathstars are designed to win. Tarpits are designed not to run, and usually SF. These are however basic troops we're talking about.

Removing or weakening steadfast will encourage even more deathstars because now they cannot be tarpitted. You're not alone in this but you really, really need to think these things through to the end. As its stands, this complaint is imprecise, empirically false and misleading.


And yet I hold the vast majority opinion still :rolleyes:

Real point was the proliferation of stubborn which has absolutely lead to more deathstar builds. Simply put, this edition has made it a better option to put all of your eggs in one basket. I'd like to decrease that.

As for steadfast: Disrupting Ranks should eliminate ranks for steadfast. I like an increased emphasis on the movement phase, not 20 more turns of grinding a unit to dust. Sorry if you disagree.

Shadeseraph
05-09-2013, 15:27
Real point was the proliferation of stubborn which has absolutely lead to more deathstar builds.

That's actually a fair point: Crown of Command and Unbreakable on daemon princes need to go.

SteveW
05-09-2013, 15:37
I have: 1.5k game and a IF Dwellers caused my main unit to run off the board taking (through panic) 3 other units; all I had left was my bunker unit; the game was won on turn 1 before I had even moved a model.

That is poor deployment, not a problem with magic.

boli
05-09-2013, 15:55
Battle for the pass doesn't give much room for deployment.

IcedCrow
05-09-2013, 16:12
The all or nothing victory point system contributed to points denial death stars as well

Phazael
05-09-2013, 16:13
Steadfast is a good idea, just in need of tweaking. The Crown of Command and Standard of Discipline need to be removed, though. And the Skaven book could be nearly completely fixed with one simple change; no strength in numbers for slaves. Make people have to take Clan Rats for LD10 tarpits instead of the 70% cheaper slaves, and a lot of the more heinous builds cease. Make Disruption eliminate Steadfast and then you have basically fixed every major issue with steadfast without tossing out the good parts.

Some other areas I would tweak if I were holding the Cattle Prod of Command pointed at Ward's family jewels:
Magic-
Purple Sun works off of toughness, instead of Initiative. Reduce the amount debuffed by all of the Shadow spells to a single point each and make Mind Razor cause the affected unit to ignore armor saves instead of its current effect. Lower casting values of most of the Lore of Fire and Lore of Beasts. Make the Miscast Table a d6+ Dice used system so that random miscasts are not punished greatly but 6 dice wiz kids get kicked in the junk for abusing kill spells all the time. Make Magic Resistance increase attributes for the purposes of characteristic tests taken vs Kill Spells (ie an Elf with MR1 tests Dwellers as if STR4).

Combat-
Support attacks MUST target rank and file unless there are none left in the enemy unit, regardless of reach and front rank attacks MAY regardless of position. This will eliminate both the Ogre Wall of unkillable characters and make lower end combat characters more survivable. Allow Challenges to continue through to ASL initiative step for overkill purposes, so that one ten point champ does not autowin fights against a dragon riding lord all the time. Make Killing Blow one wound with no armor saves against all unit types, heroic KB can work as it does now. Make Hatred require pursuit of fleeing units. No supporting attacks for units that do not have enough models in the front rank to constitute at least one rank, to limit the rat dart and conga line shenanigans. Allow MC Cav mounts one attack from support.

Shooting-
Cannons take a BS test based on the cover and range to target point and double the first artillery dice roll if they fail it. Remove movement penalties for light shooting units (let Wood Elves ignore range to compensate). Allow 4+ Lookout Sir rolls for any character that is not a large target, but is within a unit of differing type (eg mounted empire hero joined to infantry).

Army Construction and General-
Require a minimum of one core unit per full 1k points in the game as part of army design (so two minimum in most normal sized games) and that many additional units (so four total units, at least two core in normal games). Allow large target BSBs to extend Hold Your Ground to 18 inches. Have units fleeing at the end of the game count for half points. Limit the number of models that can occupy buildings and give mechanics for destroying them in the main rules. If you flee through an already fleeing unit, then that unit flees again immediately (eliminates the double hop cock block and makes chaff use more tactical). Require all war machines to be the first unit drop in normal scenarios (cuts down on castling). Increase victory margin to 100 per fraction of 1k points of the game (so 300 in normal games and scaling from there). Reintroduce table corner bonus points, but require fortitude to control them. Limit mysterious terrain to forests and water features only.

Well that rambled on a while, but its mostly minor tweaks with an eye at toning down certain annoyances and adding some flexibility for down the road.

Charistoph
05-09-2013, 16:23
Oh man. Sorry to say that but the contradictions here are pretty blindingly obvious.
Oh man. Sorry to say but what you listed after this shows that you did not actually READ what was 'claimed'.


Claim 1: Units cannot be broken, there's no way.
I didn't say units cannot be broken. What I said is that Steadfast cannot be broken except by grinding the unit down. The only way to prevent a unit from being Steadfast with you in combat is outnumbering him. Nothing else, no flanks, no rear charges, no magic, nothing. You HAVE to out Rank the enemy to prevent them from having Steadfast.


Claim 2: It only takes a single cheapo core model to break units, the ease is unrealistic!
Again, you either misunderstand or are deliberately trolling. All a unit needs to be Steadfast is one Rank higher than their opponent, correct? That can be the difference of one single model. That disparity can mean the difference of a challenging Break (Steadfast) or an easier Break (not Steadfast). Even if the Outruanked unit killed more than double the casualties they received, if the enemy unit has just enough models to provide sufficient Rank, they are magically Stubborn. It is the capability for that one single model difference between units to decide if a unit is Steadfast comes across as a little off.


Claim 3: Everyone and his dog get SF - so both sides in a fight (can easily) have it? Are you sure? If it's so easy to get, the it's easy to break - your opponent obviously won't have SF...that's a veritable mess.
Not every unit has access to it, but all armies do, and comparing it to how hard it is to get a Stubborn unit, it is VERY easy to get. All you have to do is Out Rank your opponent at the end of the fight.

Haravikk
05-09-2013, 16:26
Some people complain about Steadfast, but I think it's a great feature of the game, and what really made 8th edition new and interesting, and fun.

My biggest gripe is how magic is now even more random; obviously a bit of random can be fine, but I would rather have weaker but more consistent magic so it's possible to actually build some strategies around it. Leave damaging spells with greater potential rewards from higher risks, but currently the magic system is just too unreliable overall. Sure there are ways to mitigate it, but the result is it's not as fun as the designers seem to think, and can also be a cause to ruin a game if an overpowered spell is particularly effective, or your wizard explodes a big chunk of points away.

I don't mind it so much for Storm of Magic games; you expect magic to be chaotic and random, and for such games it is fun, but personally I like to be able to enjoy some of the tactics a bit more, and while random elements absolutely should serve as a means of preventing the gaming becoming about pure tactics, it's just too random IMO, as certain spells can render entire units obsolete. It's not even as if people were complaining all that much about magic being really weak in 7th edition, if anything it needed some of the minor nerfs (i.e - the dice limits) but not the uber spells that ignore Magic Resistance.

Captain Collius
05-09-2013, 18:30
I told her my little plastic men were cost like twice as much over there though :(

Don't Worry I'm in International Shipping I got ya covered.

StygianBeach
05-09-2013, 18:48
No supporting attacks for units that do not have enough models in the front rank to constitute at least one rank, to limit the rat dart and conga line shenanigans.


I would prefer no supporting attacks for non-spear and un-horded units, but I really like that idea. I like it alot.

Shadeseraph
05-09-2013, 19:20
That would seriously hurt MSU so I can't say I like it. I agree congalines aren't good for the game, but that soehorns formations too much imho. Rat darts are better dealt by giving them a min of 10 or 20 models per unit. They are still cheap, but congalining them becomes a pain because of how long they are, and no music to swift reform.

smaxx
05-09-2013, 20:56
What do people think the biggest problems holding 8th edition back are? - Is it rules, GWs releases, armies or what?
Rules are OK, when playing with good comps. Eight edition army books are really good. The only actual gripe is non-existing 8th edition army books for Wood Elves and Bretonnia.

leopard
06-09-2013, 01:16
Biggest Gripe? The section of the rules titled "Movement", specifically:

1. Why can you position models to set up 'impossible charges' ala the two eagles in front of a horde? if you can make contact you should be allowed to - it should not be safe to stand right in front of the enemy - modify the rules on which arc you fight in, so the current system is the 'preferred' arc, but if thats not possible you hit what you can hit.

2. Why can you set a model up so that while the unit can clearly be seen, it cannot be charged - e.g. standing adjacent to a building, I can clearly see you but can only charge the arc the building blocks - again as above in that situation as long as I can make contact you should not be safe.

3. How exactly does a single goblin hero standing at a funny angle cause a charging horde of screaming nutters to change direction? Instead of the attacker aligning to the defender why not have contact made, neither side align initially, fight a round (can easily determine how many models fight as they are all on known base sizes), then the defeated side aligns to the winner, or if wiped out any overruns are done in the direction the unit was moving anyway (i.e. you ran right over them). If you want to divert an enemy you need a unit that will actually hold them up.

4. Allow units to 'move' into combat, not just charge, but by so doing give up any bonuses from the act of charging, e.g. no +1CR, no benefit from the lance in the first round - so you can move into combat sideways and backwards, or by reforming, you are just not as good at fighting when you get there - again removes the ability to be perfectly safe alongside or behind the enemy -- if the only option they have is to reverse into you then so be it, but at least the option is there.

5. Handbrake turns, don't measure from the outside of the front rank when wheeling, measure from the model that will move the furthest, make big blocks difficult to turn and provide a benefit to smaller narrow ones - people don't like units of 100 of anything, make it as cumbersome as it looks. -- this is perhaps the easiest change to bring in, and fits with the 'no model may move more than twice its movement characteristic' rule, as opposed to providing yet another exception

You could seriously simplify the movement section:
1. move directly ahead
2. Wheel to change direction
3. Reform/Swift Reform
4. March to move further
5. Charge to move further

In all cases if you contact an enemy you stop and fight them, you contact the face of the enemy unit thats closest to you, or if that is blocked the second closest, then the third, then the forth - but in all cases must have the movement to actually get there so going around the back is unlikely unless you are very fast and thats all thats open.

The movement system has too many oddball situations left over from when units were a lot smaller, needs a ground up re-think.

ZigZagMan
06-09-2013, 01:30
My biggest gripe about 8th edition is people griping about 8th edition. Especially steadfast, which, except for a couple bad examples, such as skaven slaves, is not broken. The all or nothing approch of disruption destroying steadfast just annoys me. Maybe modify it, but 10 guys scaring 100 into fleeing, just because they are beside them, too much. Some small tweaks need to be done to the game, but my biggest gripe is people griping.

Glabro
06-09-2013, 01:49
1. Imbalanced Battle Magic - most of the 8th ed armybook lores are more sensible by far. Mindrazor, pit of shades (kill sauruses on 2+ effectively, whee), etc etc etc
2. Steadfast - great idea, terrible execution.
3. Watering down the infantry focus of 8th with monsters and monstrous cavalry (in addition to magic) dominating.

Lord Solar Plexus
06-09-2013, 05:43
And yet I hold the vast majority opinion still :rolleyes:

Do you? Don't fool yourself just because half a dozen people here have said the same.

Complaints about steadfast are unreasonable and unfounded. It's the only thing that makes weak core infantry halfway useful, and still people only ever take the minimum they must. Everyone who wants to get rid of SF or make it even a little weaker apparently wants to completely get rid of core (and some elite) combat infantry. Nobody explains how or why the game would be better though.

I very rarely say this because it's usually not true but without steadfast, I don't think I would like this game half as much. The alternative of stuff breaking left, right and centre is simply nothing I want.

Mike3791
06-09-2013, 05:53
I think it's time for another big change, I would abolish the current FOC and just require at least 30% ranked infantry. Players already avoid light infantry core troop blocks like the plague so why force them to load up on core cavalry and chariots? If elite infantry from the current special slots could help fill the army requirements then it would encourage more low model count games. There is a reason why WOC, Ogres, and Lizards are very popular.. because they can already field elite, low model count infantry.

Kayosiv
06-09-2013, 06:48
Combat-
Support attacks MUST target rank and file unless there are none left in the enemy unit, regardless of reach and front rank attacks MAY regardless of position. This will eliminate both the Ogre Wall of unkillable characters and make lower end combat characters more survivable. Allow Challenges to continue through to ASL initiative step for overkill purposes, so that one ten point champ does not autowin fights against a dragon riding lord all the time. Make Killing Blow one wound with no armor saves against all unit types, heroic KB can work as it does now. Make Hatred require pursuit of fleeing units. No supporting attacks for units that do not have enough models in the front rank to constitute at least one rank, to limit the rat dart and conga line shenanigans. Allow MC Cav mounts one attack from support.


This is pretty much my biggest list of grievences aside from the magic lores being far to powerful.

I want to expand on the challenge rules a bit to because I think they are a particularly grievous offender.

Challenging is supposed to be about epic fights between heroes and villains, underdog champions defeating enemies against the odds, and cinematic battles. It does none of those things.

In the actual game of Warhammer, you never want your strong character in a challenge because it is always more effective to kill more than 1 troop instead of 1 troop. You want your weak heroes in challenges so they are protected from attacks, which is the exact opposite of what you'd expect; instead of epic heroes in epic challenges, you get weaklings in lame challenges. Winning a challenge offers no benefit. Bonus combat resolution is not as good as regular combat resolution with more dead enemy troops. Losing a challenge has no penalty. Having your guy killed in a challenge is bad, but they were just as likely (oftentimes more likely) to die outside of a challenge, and since it gives the enemy no benefit to have killed your character or champion, nobody cares what the outcome of a challenge is. This is the opposite of a cinematic confrontation because nobody is vested in the result.

Also standard bearers dying automatically when they flee from combat is the dumbest rule ever. Drop the flag maybe, but automatically dying? Unbelievably stupid.

Lord Solar Plexus
06-09-2013, 07:02
I think it's time for another big change, I would abolish the current FOC and just require at least 30% ranked infantry. Players already avoid light infantry core troop blocks like the plague so why force them to load up on core cavalry and chariots?

Why that requirement? What does it do? Why can I not play a cavalry list? I think HE players take SH on their own volition, and WoC players do not at all feel forced to play with only chariots, or whatever "load up on" means. Again, your ideas only show what characterizes most of this thread: It's not thought through at all. At this point, "light infantry" has a useful place, and that is to provide ranks, to hold out for a while and to contribute in the form of an anvil, so it is hardly true that everyone tries to avoid them - as a matter of fact, these units are the usually losing and sf ones people are without good reason so up in arms about. Requiring just a certain percentage of ranked infantry would do nothing for them if these units are actively avoided as you say though.

Mike3791
06-09-2013, 08:23
Two reasons, 1) it makes the game more infantry centric, 2) low model startup

I didn't say light infantry was useless, far from it.. but the *option* for every army to field an elite infantry army would help the hobby especially for new players.

Urgat
06-09-2013, 08:33
Support attacks MUST target rank and file unless there are none left in the enemy unit, regardless of reach and front rank attacks MAY regardless of position. This will eliminate both the Ogre Wall of unkillable characters and make lower end combat characters more survivable. Allow Challenges to continue through to ASL initiative step for overkill purposes, so that one ten point champ does not autowin fights against a dragon riding lord all the time. Make Killing Blow one wound with no armor saves against all unit types

You don't like your blender lord to be targeted, do you? So stick a vampire in a huge unit of ghouls and laugh your ass off as your opponent can do nothing at all against him? This is a completely game-ruining idea, if you haven't yet realised ;)

Artinam
06-09-2013, 09:01
On the other hand, it prevents character walls where 3 1+ rerollable AS Bretonnians prevent their entire unit taking a scratch. Or charging a unit in the flank with a character making way to that end or worse getting in a challenge and preventing any attacks from the unit. This is a situation where it punishes you for charing a unit in the flank.

I see your point though, sometimes you can just grind down the enemy hero by sheer volume of attacks.

Urgat
06-09-2013, 09:56
It prevents what, really? If I put 5 goblin big bosses in the first rank of my unit, sure, you'll be able to go round them and make some kills. Who wants to bet my five big bosses will more than average that (and you're not going to be able to do anything about them, yay!)? Also, if we put aside the fact that they're now useless, stuff like assassins or sneaky skewers also become immortal. If you want to go around the characters, actually do go around. People claimor for steadfast to be removed by flanking, so that combo charges will be efficient. Well if you combo charge already, you achieve that: characters can't be everywhere at the same time. I'm sorry but this suggestion is just for people who want even more efficient bunkers, that's all it will really achieve. Now you can happily put your mage in a unit that will go in melee, safe in the fact that nothing can hurt him unless the whole unit (that will of course be a deathstar) is wiped out.
You want a better solution? Allow any all all troops to be able to target anything in the two first ranks of the enemy unit. Add an exception for slanns so that LM players don't wine, et voila!

Lord Solar Plexus
06-09-2013, 10:30
Two reasons, 1) it makes the game more infantry centric, 2) low model startup


1. Who wants that and why does that have to be so? You're just artificially limiting choices - no thanks.

2. Uh, what?!? It requires more models. I'm happy to show you a couple of army lists I've used in the past if you don't believe me.



I didn't say light infantry was useless, far from it.. but the *option* for every army to field an elite infantry army would help the hobby especially for new players.

Hard to believe. The possibility to face an army of White Lions or Temple / Grave Guard is not appealing in the least, it just allows for some crazy new WAAC builds.

Artinam
06-09-2013, 10:53
Your solution Urgat sounds better, it prevents things like characters walls and silly command models quasi forcing fragile things like a BSB and a wizard tot he second rank.

Ghremdal
06-09-2013, 12:39
Or just add a exception that you can always target rank and file troops, regardless of base contact.

IcedCrow
06-09-2013, 15:08
The day the game allows super elite armies again everywhere is the day im outta here. Low model count games are what warmachine is for.

I play a version of that. Its called D&D.

Ramius4
06-09-2013, 15:15
The day the game allows super elite armies again everywhere is the day im outta here. Low model count games are what warmachine is for.

I play a version of that. Its called D&D.

Agreed. After playing the previous 17 years (since 93 and 4th ed) essentially relying on characters and/or elite troops to win the day, or winning by being able to judge distances better than my opponent (because before 8th, let's face it, just charging usually meant you won combat), 8th edition was a breath of fresh air. And armies began to LOOK like armies, rather than an over-inflated ratio of troops to characters.

Frankly I'm shocked at the statements about Steadfast. Could it be implemented better? Sure it could use a tweak. But Steadfast in conjunction with the new casualty removal rules (the rules people erroneously call 'step up', when no such rule exists) are responsible for making Core Troops worthwhile at all, as well as units of more than 20 models having a purpose besides throwing points away. There's no way I want to return to the days where your 10 Chaos Warriors could run into my 20+ Core Troops and essentially auto-break them every time, all the time.

The only changes I would like to see for Steadfast are some form of disruption. And counting aggregate ranks of all units involved in a multiple combat (making MSU a very viable tactic).

For magic, I've never been a fan of 'test or die' spells without saves, so that's an easy fix with only a couple spells needing to be reworked.

If I have one big gripe about the magic phase it's that there is no incentive to take a Level 1 or Level 3 because of the extra bonus to cast and dispel that a Level 2 or 4 gets. I'd like to see a change to +1 for Level 1/2 and +2 for Level 3/4 to encourage their use, as well as lessening the disparity between those that want magic and those who don't.

An Initiative bonus for charging would be welcome. The way it is, a +1 combat resolution bonus for doing so is nearly irrelevant with the amount of wounds that units can inflict in combat these days.


Or just add a exception that you can always target rank and file troops, regardless of base contact.

Funny, my group has had this as a house rule all the way back since 5th edition.

Maltor
07-09-2013, 06:39
I've felt that a +1 to init for charging would help this edition. It would give units with equal or 1 less init a reason to get the charge and possibly stop ASF rerolls, but not be so much that units paying for higher init are greatly disadvantaged.

Mike3791
07-09-2013, 08:22
The day the game allows super elite armies again everywhere is the day im outta here. Low model count games are what warmachine is for.

Guess what, Warmachine is more popular then fantasy in the U.S. and growing. No offense but GW doesn't care about a few veteran players, they want to grow the game in the long run, and if they have to take successful elements from other game systems and incorporate it into fantasy then they will. They already did this with the current version of 40k by transferring "magic", challenges, combat res, and random charges from fantasy.. some special rules are the same too. Its common business practice in all fields, look at facebook, google+, and twitter.. they all look/function A LOT similar to each other then they did 5 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if they added allies to fantasy the same way they did for 40k, purely for profit reasons.. and who can blame them? The allies portion of 40k helped sell more kits without a player dedicating a lot of time/money to an entire new army.

AmaroK
07-09-2013, 09:08
Guess what, Warmachine is more popular then fantasy in the U.S. and growing. No offense but GW doesn't care about a few veteran players, they want to grow the game in the long run, and if they have to take successful elements from other game systems and incorporate it into fantasy then they will. They already did this with the current version of 40k by transferring "magic", challenges, combat res, and random charges from fantasy.. some special rules are the same too. Its common business practice in all fields, look at facebook, google+, and twitter.. they all look/function A LOT similar to each other then they did 5 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if they added allies to fantasy the same way they did for 40k, purely for profit reasons.. and who can blame them? The allies portion of 40k helped sell more kits without a player dedicating a lot of time/money to an entire new army.

Streamlining systems and copying is not the best thing to do for a company that wants to be on top. If you look to mmorpg videogames, everyone tried to copy WoW (warhammer online QQ) and most of them failed because why would you play a copy when you could play the original one. Those who stayed on their original concepts survived in the long run (EVE online). Warhammer Fantasy appeals to those who like to see armies on the table, not a skirmish game. That will make it harder to start, surely appealing to a minority because of the higher model count, but going skirmish or copy other concepts would kill Fantasy in the long run, in my opinion. A very different thing is to stablish an introductory ruleset for skirmish/low points battles as an entry for the core game, but change the whole concept and definition to try to copy Warhamahordes or any other is a a big mistake.

RainSong
07-09-2013, 11:16
They need smaller gateway games into warhammer fantasy like hero quest and those mb games a few years ago.

Lord Solar Plexus
07-09-2013, 12:13
I'd like to play Dark Omen again. Couldn't find it on Steam, GoG or Gamers Gate though...

maze ironheart
07-09-2013, 13:42
I really have no gripe my local mostly plays 40k I play fantasy against my cousin and his gaming group.

Fear Ghoul
07-09-2013, 14:05
Guess what, Warmachine is more popular then fantasy in the U.S. and growing.

Warmachine is more popular amongst independent retailers in the US. That doesn't mean Fantasy is less popular than Warmachine overall, or for that matter that GW should change their game systems based on the buying preferences of Americans.

yabbadabba
07-09-2013, 14:39
Guess what, Warmachine is more popular then fantasy in the U.S. and growing. Proof?

No offense but GW doesn't care about a few veteran players, they want to grow the game in the long run, and if they have to take successful elements from other game systems and incorporate it into fantasy then they will. No argument about the Vets.

They already did this with the current version of 40k by transferring "magic", Magic - what magic?

challenges, I think they have been in 40K before - possibly RT - but I am sure someone will correct me.

combat res, 40K has always had combat res

and random charges from fantasy Yes and 40K had game wide random movement before 40K.

.. some special rules are the same too. Its like all your examples - the games come from a common root

I wouldn't be surprised if they added allies to fantasy the same way they did for 40k, purely for profit reasons.. WFB had allies rules before.

and who can blame them? The allies portion of 40k helped sell more kits without a player dedicating a lot of time/money to an entire new army. We don't know that as we only have anecdotal proof for and against.

While there is a crossover between the two games, the idea that you can't play WFB without large numbers of troops is a myth, much like 40K is only a small number count game. What tends to happen is that in certin environments certain perspectives gain precedence and then are seen to be normal instead of what they actually are - a local variation.

IcedCrow
07-09-2013, 14:41
Guess what, Warmachine is more popular then fantasy in the U.S. and growing. No offense but GW doesn't care about a few veteran players, they want to grow the game in the long run, and if they have to take successful elements from other game systems and incorporate it into fantasy then they will. They already did this with the current version of 40k by transferring "magic", challenges, combat res, and random charges from fantasy.. some special rules are the same too. Its common business practice in all fields, look at facebook, google+, and twitter.. they all look/function A LOT similar to each other then they did 5 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if they added allies to fantasy the same way they did for 40k, purely for profit reasons.. and who can blame them? The allies portion of 40k helped sell more kits without a player dedicating a lot of time/money to an entire new army.

Do you have some kind of proof for this? In my region warmachine is hard to find. I am not aware of an empirical fact that shows warmachine being more popular, and if i go by the ohio valley as the world id say warmachine isnt anything more than a wet fart in the grand scheme of things.

Of course thats just my region. Six gaming stores in a 100 mile spread, two carry war machine but only one has any regular group and does any events for it.

Not very visible here at all.

Also alienating an entire half of a population that likes actual units to cater to the group that just wants 15 models doesnt seem very logical considering the elite army crowd is already being served.

Not to mention warhammer already caters to them with warriors of chaos, demons, and ogres which can have low model armies just as 40k has orks and guard and nid swarms for players that like swarm armies.

Voss
07-09-2013, 16:27
Do you? Don't fool yourself just because half a dozen people here have said the same.

Complaints about steadfast are unreasonable and unfounded. It's the only thing that makes weak core infantry halfway useful, and still people only ever take the minimum they must. Everyone who wants to get rid of SF or make it even a little weaker apparently wants to completely get rid of core (and some elite) combat infantry. Nobody explains how or why the game would be better though.
.
Yesh, talk about unreasonable and unfounded. If you're making a claim that involves 'only ever,' 'everyone' and 'completely get rid of' (not to mention things breaking 'left, right and center') you probably are not making a rational argument.

Personally, I find that it tends to make combat overly static, and simply dismisses too many tactics, the most obvious of which is any sort of disruption by flankers or additional units coming into the fight.

Lord Solar Plexus
07-09-2013, 17:39
Okay, okay, you're right, I got carried away a bit. Sorry. Of course I'm speaking about trends and tendencies. However, my point stands. If you think it is not true that people take minimum core even though it supposedly breaks the game I invite you to pick a random selection of army lists.

SF units must by necessity be prevalent if this is the top grievance people have. When I look around, I just don't see that, at least not in such numbers as could be expected. There are always a couple who have these units but that is only right and proper - if we have to take core (and most players actively need to be forced to do so and did not do that on their own volition in the past either), we might as well make it useful.

And then there are those lists which have more than min core with two big blocks of Warriors or lots of Imperial Knights or what do I know but these are hardly ever steadfast.

We both know that it is a waste of time to argue against personal opinion - it's there and that's that, which is why these thread grow so long (and it's also why it really doesn't matter whether I speak in absolutes or not; reason's not going to bridge the gap or anything). I find that SF increases the tactical toolbox - hello, hammer and anvil? Oh, that was around before but the units where few. SF suddenly made it possibly to use cheap core in this role, and it also made it possible to use combined arms of INF + CAV, it resembles the ancient othismos very, very well, it perfectly shows how INF was always superior to CAV and so on. Flanking too is highly useful: A flank charge from a unit of State Troops can crush Chaos Warriors and Clanrats, whereas a frontal charge would end in either disaster or a long-drawn out fight. There's no automatism that SF will hold, or that it'll turn into a stalemate over 5 turns. You need to pick the right tools of course to break it.

Avian
07-09-2013, 17:43
Personally, my change for Steadfast would be that your rank bonus could go up to +5 (instead of +3) and that you were Steadfast if your rank bonus was higher than that of all opponents. That would also be much clearer.

DaemonReign
07-09-2013, 18:35
Personally, my change for Steadfast would be that your rank bonus could go up to +5 (instead of +3) and that you were Steadfast if your rank bonus was higher than that of all opponents. That would also be much clearer.

What's unclear about the concept of counting aggregate ranks per combat?
The most dynamic/intuitive solution afaic.
I do Think your suggestion is probably better compared to the current official rules, though, just not quite as elegant as the aggregate ranks thing.

Avian
07-09-2013, 18:44
The thing about Steadfast is that it starts and stops counting ranks at a different point than rank bonus does. That's rather unintuitive, given that they are essentially representing the same thing in-game, and we've had piles of threads on the subject in the rules forum. It's much like Unit Strength and rank bonus was in the last couple of editions (and look at where Unit Strength ended up).

Miredorf
07-09-2013, 19:20
I quit for three years because of 7th edition.

So you quit in the 1st year after 7th ed was released, so it was not because of daemons, DE,VC (edit: and skaven) armybooks.. But 7th edition was basically 6th edition tweaked so why you quit 7 years too late?

Just wondering what is that which bugged you so much about 7th if was not these 3 army books.

IcedCrow
07-09-2013, 19:28
Msu cavalry lines. The 1/8" shuffle. Basically the game resembling nothing like any actual battle of that time period. No infantry. Arguing over 100ths of an inch. Every game playing out exactly the same. Static tactics that always worked.

Just to name a few. Every edition has ****** army books. Demons, dark elves etc wouldnt have bothered me because i dont play in a powergaming group that would have exploited those things.

Miredorf
07-09-2013, 20:07
The key, I think, is that the demographic which (whom? that? Hargh, English) enjoys 8th ed is just different than the one that enjoyed 7th ed. I don't think it would be any lower... if the base had actually existed before. 7th ed had no problem because it followed from 6th ed, it was the same kind of gameplay after all, so it already had its playerbase. I honestly don't know how 6th ed started, but it was such a big departure from 4th/5th ed that it can't really be compared anyway. 8th ed, by comparison, is still very close to 7th ed, all things considered. Different in many ways that are enough to , but still somewhat close enough that the people who used to like 7th ed have plenty of bases for comparison. 8th ed, therefore, pissed off the people who did enjoy 7th, but there's factors (whatever factors we may agree on, for me it's prices) that slow down the renewal of the player base that would enjoy 8th ed otherwise.

I dont think the basic ruleset from 6th changed so much in respect to 5th.. It was killing herohammer through lower stats, less special rules, less magic items and less points allowed for them (instead 50% of the army it moved to 1 commander-4 heroes, etc) what changed the game the most.

It was less complex gameplay also, but that has been happening with every edition a little bit more.




Random charge range - you either like it or you hate it. I love it. I hated static charging. Static charging bored the hell out of me. It was one of the originators of the 1/8" shuffle of the last edition. The current system is fine. It creates situations where you may fail and you can't bank everything on tactics always working 100% like they used to. It forces risk mitigation. Quite honestly if they ever went back to static charges, I'd probably leave the game. 2M+D6 charging shrinks the random factor to make it almost a given again. No thanks. That's all opinion on my part though.

I admit i was really reluctant to random charges the 1st time we heard about it, but ive come to the conlusion that they improve the game amazingly (im a 8th hater), we have house ruled them, however, to be M+2D6-pick highest (for infantry,etc).


Msu cavalry lines. The 1/8" shuffle. Basically the game resembling nothing like any actual battle of that time period. No infantry. Arguing over 100ths of an inch. Every game playing out exactly the same. Static tactics that always worked.

Just to name a few. Every edition has ****** army books. Demons, dark elves etc wouldnt have bothered me because i dont play in a powergaming group that would have exploited those things.

But this had been the same since 4th edition really. It all depends on how your group aproached the game really. Its like the magic in 6th or the hordes. You can abuse them or not so much. The lack of useful infantry has always been a hard contender for fantasy since the beginning of the times (always hated it too) but they went too far with steadfast.. Its senseless also to see units 5x8 instead 8x5 if we talking about realistic infantry.

Well too many pros and cons, i hope 9th can adress these small tweaks 8th needs really and eventhough i know they wont touch scenery, LoS or charge distances (my real gripes) at least we can give for granted they will tone down 6 dice'ing and steadfast/congas/100 model mobs.

HurrDurr
07-09-2013, 21:05
Msu cavalry lines. The 1/8" shuffle. Basically the game resembling nothing like any actual battle of that time period. No infantry. Arguing over 100ths of an inch. Every game playing out exactly the same. Static tactics that always worked.

Just to name a few. Every edition has ****** army books. Demons, dark elves etc wouldnt have bothered me because i dont play in a powergaming group that would have exploited those things.

I can't express how much dread I feel reading that units had a static charge range, random charges bring a lot to this game even if you can get screwed by the dice (hello every other thing you do in warhammer). I never played 7th and I know I would of hated it.

Gripes with 8th? the same things that have been repeated 1000 times in this thread, number one is the entire magic phase.

IcedCrow
07-09-2013, 21:16
Maybe it has been around since 4th edition. Regardless i grew sick of the game and shelved it for those reasons. 8th brought me back. If we go back to static charges, hero hammer /war machine style play, or a game that doesnt resemble actual battles then ill put my models up again and find something else to do with my time and money.

I dont mind steadfast. It is needed. It is what makes people bring infantry again. It is what makes battles look like battles now.

It prevents the msu knight bullcrap and the individual character tooled out yo single handedly walk through entire units by themselves.

Its not perfect and i think the movement phase needs something added for sure but no steadfast at all is not the answer.

IcedCrow
07-09-2013, 21:18
I can't express how much dread I feel reading that units had a static charge range, random charges bring a lot to this game even if you can get screwed by the dice (hello every other thing you do in warhammer). I never played 7th and I know I would of hated it.

Gripes with 8th? the same things that have been repeated 1000 times in this thread, number one is the entire magic phase.

Static charges meant your tactics always worked. It got boring fast. Thats also why i like random charges.

You could literally watch a game from start to end and recite what was going to happen before it happened and direct the game like a movie; it was that predictable

DaemonReign
07-09-2013, 22:26
The thing about Steadfast is that it starts and stops counting ranks at a different point than rank bonus does. That's rather unintuitive, given that they are essentially representing the same thing in-game, and we've had piles of threads on the subject in the rules forum. It's much like Unit Strength and rank bonus was in the last couple of editions (and look at where Unit Strength ended up).
Right so what they should do is tweak Steadfast to 'start' with the second rank (just like Rank Bonus) which in turn will remove the sillyness of 5 Goblins being Steadfast against a Bloodthirster, and after this we should be counting aggregate ranks per each given combat with no maximum set for how many ranks we can have for the purpose of Steadfast. Your suggestion, if I understood it correctly, is essentially just as static as the current rule in this regard: It'd still be possible for one bus-shaped unit to be Steadfast despite being vastly outnumbered by numerous other smaller units (something that should be removed just as much as those 5 stubborn goblins).

Aggregate ranks. From the second rank. Done. This'd be dynamic and intuitive for every given situation, it'd give flanking the importance it ought to have without 'breaking' it, and it'd promote epic moshpits instead of the anticlimactic stop-blocks that some people take issue with presently.
Horde rule, then - Give us one rank of supporting attacks per five models width (so 5 through 10 models wide no change but 15-wide you get a third rank and so on). :evilgrin:

Avian
07-09-2013, 22:37
Right so what they should do is tweak Steadfast to 'start' with the second rank (just like Rank Bonus) which in turn will remove the sillyness of 5 Goblins being Steadfast against a Bloodthirster, and after this we should be counting aggregate ranks per each given combat with no maximum set for how many ranks we can have for the purpose of Steadfast. Your suggestion, if I understood it correctly, is essentially just as static as the current rule in this regard: It'd still be possible for one bus-shaped unit to be Steadfast despite being vastly outnumbered by numerous other smaller units (something that should be removed just as much as those 5 stubborn goblins).
It would be possible, but it would be Stubborn less frequently. It would lose Stubborn if flanked, or if there was a smaller unit with an equal rank bonus. Frankly, if you have the big unit vastly outnumbered by numerous other smaller units and you haven't managed to flank it, you don't deserve to be beating it on static CR.

Really, when it comes to static combat bonuses, one big unit has ALWAYS done better than multiple small ones, which it rather has to since it loses out in maneuverability and threat range.

TheDanish
08-09-2013, 01:35
IIRC the "go level 4 or go home" magic phase has been a problem since 6th edition. I don't mean to say it isn't a valid gripe for 8th, but it's hardly new.

My main problem is random charge distances.

IcedCrow
08-09-2013, 01:51
I didn't see many level 4s in 6th or 7th. I saw a lot of lords on flying mounts that would fly in and vaporize a front rank and break them. Level 4s still existed, but definitely not the disparity that exists today.

Lord Dan
08-09-2013, 02:10
No half points for things reduced by half.

I find it fascinating that the thing I like most about all of the changes in 8th - random charges - has shown up as the biggest gripe for others. To each their own, I suppose.

Miredorf
08-09-2013, 02:47
No half points for things reduced by half.

I find it fascinating that the thing I like most about all of the changes in 8th - random charges - has shown up as the biggest gripe for others. To each their own, I suppose.

I think its actually the ''range'' threat of these charges more than the random element itself.

Yeah the VPs thing is really too much simplified. They want to copycat the latest 40k systems and made a crap for both.

konate
08-09-2013, 03:29
My favorite things about 8th are random charges and, the *idea* of, steadfast.

Don't get me wrong; rerolling, Ld 10, steadfast slaves is one of my biggest gripes. Liked Icedcrow says, I think some form of steadfast is needed to keep core infantry in the game.

Random charges are good, in my mind, because I'd rather have the excitement of rolling dice than the agony of guesstimating distances. The same is true with guess weapons. Give me or my opponent a die to roll, rather than the extra time waiting for people trying to divine if a unit is in range for a charge, or how far a war machine is from its target. It's time wasted, frustrating, and not fun. The randomness of the current charge rules can also be infuriating, but find it more acceptable because not every unit should perform as expected in war or any simulations. There should always be some randomness in execution, but there shouldn't be (much) in planning.

Taking 50 Gobbos off the table from a unit of 100 by a single spell in the magic phase keeps me from the game store.

HurrDurr
08-09-2013, 03:36
Why didn't they make the magic phase more about variety or flavor and heavily based on tactics that were engaging. Instead a large portion of the abilities deal damage, or help a unit deal/resist damage.

The spells do extremely powerful things instead of requiring some more thought.

Instead of mind razor making a unit basically nullify the wound/AS portion of a combat it could of been something like +1 to wound and -X ArmS.

Instead of magic missiles having only 1-3 versions with all lvl of wizards having access to the same nuke. Wizards could gain D3 hits based on wizard lvl, then add flavor to the magic missile.(maybe the option to remove dice from your pool to cast a higher level spell, risking Miss cast)

Buffs on lvl 1-2 only last for 1 player turn where a lvl 3-4 last for your phase and the enemies.

Every wizard level should be dynamic and not just add to a static number you use to throw the same spells.

It's hard to get all my ideas about it in one place because I have so many but I think lists should be able to bring 6 lvl1 wizards and have a reason to, as well as just taking a lvl 4 if they choose.

Lord Dan
08-09-2013, 03:46
Instead of magic missiles having only 1-3 versions with all lvl of wizards having access to the same nuke. Wizards could gain D3 hits based on wizard lvl, then add flavor to the magic missile.(maybe the option to remove dice from your pool to cast a higher level spell, risking Miss cast)

I think a simpler way of doing this has already been proposed elsewhere in the thread: make certain spells available to certain caster levels. You could even have them roll on different tables much in the same way Goblins and Orcs roll on the Little and Big Waaagh! tables, respectively. They've already done something similar with the effects from Throne of Vines, which takes the same spell and simply boosts it a bit.

HurrDurr
08-09-2013, 05:07
I think a simpler way of doing this has already been proposed elsewhere in the thread: make certain spells available to certain caster levels. You could even have them roll on different tables much in the same way Goblins and Orcs roll on the Little and Big Waaagh! tables, respectively. They've already done something similar with the effects from Throne of Vines, which takes the same spell and simply boosts it a bit.

Well the problem I have with that is still the spells themselves being uber deathstar spells, throne of vines boosting flesh to stone gives 4 toughness, so unless we are talking t3 v str4-5 then you are mostly likely swinging a combat by a huge margin (going from wounding on maybe 3-5 to purely 6's). Id rather see something like +1 toughness, throne adds +1 armor save as well and extends the spell into your opponents combat phase as well. Same goes for mind razor and a lot of the other augments/hexes. You could create a situation where basic core are wounding 250pnt monsters on a 2+ with no armor saves, that just doesn't seem right.

But that's because I want to see magic rebalanced to be more linear, right now going from no wizard to a lvl 4 is night and day, I want it to feel more like taking a war machine, a unit that adds a new mechanic and dynamic.

You might ask why anyone would take wizards with such heavy nerfs to their spells, you bring the cost of them down significantly. Tada you have room for Lord level combat heroes now that you might consider taking over more core/etc. One wizard could still give you access to some of the spells you wanted but without as much flexibility as someone who brought 3.

I don't know how you would handle dispelling with this kind of system. I think the two wizards both roll a d6 and if one of them is a higher lvl they get +1 to their roll? who knows.

I also think it would be cool if magic worked in such a way that if people chose to use magic as their primary "shooting phase" that would seem very fluffy for some armies.

Lord Dan
08-09-2013, 05:14
I believe I understand now. Your problem is with the current effects of some of the spells themselves, not necessarily with who has access to them?

Ramius4
08-09-2013, 06:19
I think a simpler way of doing this has already been proposed elsewhere in the thread: make certain spells available to certain caster levels. You could even have them roll on different tables much in the same way Goblins and Orcs roll on the Little and Big Waaagh! tables, respectively. They've already done something similar with the effects from Throne of Vines, which takes the same spell and simply boosts it a bit.

Which to me, would make higher levels even MORE attractive (assuming other changes weren't made). Seems like a backwards step.


I believe I understand now. Your problem is with the current effects of some of the spells themselves, not necessarily with who has access to them?

I agree with this. Most of the issue stems from two things. The added casting/dispel bonus given by wizard levels, and a few select spells just being overboard.

Tone down some of the more powerful spells and the issues people have should become lessened. Really we're only talking about 4-6 spells that are truly offensive to most people.

In additon, I'd like to see the casting/dispel bonus be...

Level 1-2 get +1
Level 3-4 get +2

That helps the disparity you see between someone who either chooses not to bring a wizard, and/or someone who perhaps lost his wizard during the game. It makes going 'magic light' quite viable for those who wish to. The secondary effect is that it also makes Level 1's and 3's attractive. When's the last time you saw someone use a Level 3???

I would also prefer to see a Miscast roll modified by the number of dice used to cast a spell. Miscasts currently just aren't dangerous enough.

Caiphas Cain
08-09-2013, 06:29
I can't stand random charge distances, nor can I understand why people think that it's exciting. Randomness is something that should be kept to a minimum in games of all types be they video games, board games, or war games. The unknown factor of a battle should come down to tactics used by your opponent. Hell, if you think randomness is fun, why stop with charge distances? Knowing that your archers will always have a range of 24" is sooo boring. /sarcasm

The argument for them makes little sense. "If you only charge three inches, think of it as your troops tripping up in difficult terrain." No. That's what difficult terrain rules are for. :mad:

WLBjork
08-09-2013, 07:57
Random charge distances fixed a problem - faster units could sit a fraction out of the enemies charge range, maybe bait the enemy into making a failed charge before hitting like a Kansas Tornado (or, in some cases, a gentle passing of wind!). Dwarfs almost never got to charge without the Anvil of Doom, for example.

By and large, the only (ranged) weapons with similar problems are thrown weapons.

I feel that GW hit Fear a little bit too hard. Yes it needed toning down, auto-break was too powerful. I think that the effect would have been better represented by allowing Fear-causing units to gain an additional CR bonus equal to rank bonus and outnumber, with units Immune to Fear getting to ignore the bonus CR.

Also agree that Steadfast is OTT - it makes a number of Stubborn units look overpriced now. I think Avian's idea about upping the Rank Bonus to +5 to replace this is great.

HurrDurr
08-09-2013, 07:59
I believe I understand now. Your problem is with the current effects of some of the spells themselves, not necessarily with who has access to them?

Correct, few but powerful spells also encourages the 6 dicing "meta".

Caiphas Cain
08-09-2013, 08:32
Random charge distances fixed a problem - faster units could sit a fraction out of the enemies charge range, maybe bait the enemy into making a failed charge before hitting like a Kansas Tornado (or, in some cases, a gentle passing of wind!). Dwarfs almost never got to charge without the Anvil of Doom, for example.

By and large, the only (ranged) weapons with similar problems are thrown weapons.

I feel that GW hit Fear a little bit too hard. Yes it needed toning down, auto-break was too powerful. I think that the effect would have been better represented by allowing Fear-causing units to gain an additional CR bonus equal to rank bonus and outnumber, with units Immune to Fear getting to ignore the bonus CR.

Also agree that Steadfast is OTT - it makes a number of Stubborn units look overpriced now. I think Avian's idea about upping the Rank Bonus to +5 to replace this is great.

I played Dwarves and it was incredibly easy so solve that issue. Have enough guns pointed at your enemy to force them to close the distance, and then use warriors as detachments to flank next turn.

Malagor
08-09-2013, 08:33
Knowing that your archers will always have a range of 24" is sooo boring. /sarcasm

That's what rolling to hit is for ;)
I like random charge distances as do many where I play.
It creates tense moments when it's time for your epic charge that may or may not win the game and you roll the dice to see if your plan will come to fruition.

Caiphas Cain
08-09-2013, 09:29
Yes, but thise same tense moments also arose in 7th and all of the previous editions when charging at longer distances.

Urgat
08-09-2013, 09:34
The thing about Steadfast is that it starts and stops counting ranks at a different point than rank bonus does. That's rather unintuitive, given that they are essentially representing the same thing in-game, and we've had piles of threads on the subject in the rules forum. It's much like Unit Strength and rank bonus was in the last couple of editions (and look at where Unit Strength ended up).

A shame, I really liked Unit Strength, it dealt with many issues efficiently.


I dont think the basic ruleset from 6th changed so much in respect to 5th.. It was killing herohammer through lower stats, less special rules, less magic items and less points allowed for them (instead 50% of the army it moved to 1 commander-4 heroes, etc) what changed the game the most.

It still made for a completely different game. In that regard, 7th ed and 8th ed are much more similar.


I can't stand random charge distances, nor can I understand why people think that it's exciting.

It fixes the 8" shuffle. The one lamest thing in all the editions up till know was the units standing at just beyond 8th of each other, and waiting for the other to come in range for some reason or another and gently offer to be charged. People might not like random stuff, but for me this is beyond minute compared to the massive log it pulled from the clockwork.



Also agree that Steadfast is OTT - it makes a number of Stubborn units look overpriced now. I think Avian's idea about upping the Rank Bonus to +5 to replace this is great.

Not really, no. I know it's abused by everybody and their mother, but the idea behind steadfast was to allow mob-type troops (goblins, gnobblars, skavens, etc) to stick around versus the onslaught of elite units. When my gobs are charged by chaos warriors, it's not +2 to the CR that will change anything, I'll still most likely need to roll snake eyes, thus fixing nothing at all. Imho steadfast is pretty good where it stands, what is needed is for something to make small units equally attractive. I think a good venue to explore would be maneuvers, restricting large units, or rewarding small units, either of them. Totally random and w/o any thoughts being it, but say a unit under 20 can freely reform once per turn, a unit under 40 has no bonus/malus, a unit over 40 can't do battle reforms; or small units can dash (M trippled) and big units have -1M when marching. Stuff like that.

yabbadabba
08-09-2013, 11:26
I think what this thread shows is that people want different things from their game, and GW are not going to satisfy everyone, ever.

IcedCrow
08-09-2013, 14:33
I can't stand random charge distances, nor can I understand why people think that it's exciting. Randomness is something that should be kept to a minimum in games of all types be they video games, board games, or war games. The unknown factor of a battle should come down to tactics used by your opponent. Hell, if you think randomness is fun, why stop with charge distances? Knowing that your archers will always have a range of 24" is sooo boring. /sarcasm

The argument for them makes little sense. "If you only charge three inches, think of it as your troops tripping up in difficult terrain." No. That's what difficult terrain rules are for. :mad:

Thats your opinion. Youre welcome to it but just as you cant fathom why people like random charges, i cannot fathom a boring system where everything plays out the same every game.

The tense moment you are describing above is the 1/8" shuffle. May it rot in hell for all eternity. Lamest thing in the invention of wargaming short of the 5th edition forbidden rod.

IcedCrow
08-09-2013, 14:36
I think what this thread shows is that people want different things from their game, and GW are not going to satisfy everyone, ever.

Yessir! Thats why im glad multiple games exist. Play the one you like.

Ullis
08-09-2013, 14:56
Yessir! Thats why im glad multiple games exist. Play the one you like.

Indeed, all this chatter about how the game "should be" is subjective and largely drivel. Every game I have played has bits that I like and bits that I dislike, but you just have to take the good with the bad and get over it.

Shadeseraph
08-09-2013, 15:16
I can't stand random charge distances, nor can I understand why people think that it's exciting. Randomness is something that should be kept to a minimum in games of all types be they video games, board games, or war games. The unknown factor of a battle should come down to tactics used by your opponent. Hell, if you think randomness is fun, why stop with charge distances? Knowing that your archers will always have a range of 24" is sooo boring. /sarcasm

The argument for them makes little sense. "If you only charge three inches, think of it as your troops tripping up in difficult terrain." No. That's what difficult terrain rules are for. :mad:

Personally, I like random charges because it leaves the field open to new tactics and adds interesting elements to the movement/charge phase:
-First, it forces risk assesment, which is great. You have a random chance to make that charge, is it worth that risk? Would you lose a lot by missing? This is an important point that was lost on fixed charge distances: Either you were good at eyeballing distances, or you weren't. The tactics were more about forcing the enemy to enter your threat range, which is something present with random charges too.
-Second, threat prevention: Because you may fail the charge, you need to take into account how to prevent that risk: Maybe you can charge with multiple units, so that at least one (or more) manages to make the charge, or you have chaff to cover the unit in case of a failed charge. I've seen some very interesting ideas (although a bit gamey) about how to use chaff to cancel the forward movement from a failed charge. And so on.
-Finally, it adds meat to charging and redirecting charges. I like the redirecting mechanic, as it forces tactical decissions about when to flee and when to pursue much more interesting, adding a large amount of interesting quirks to possitioning. This mechanic wouldn't be half as interesting with fixed range charges.

And, well, I've got to admit that I'm not that good at guessing distances, and that I'm kind of lax about exact possitioning during a game, as I dislike taking too long on possitioning a unit exactly were I want it, which used to be half of the movement phase in previous editions, trying to decide on half an inch.

HurrDurr
08-09-2013, 16:18
Indeed, all this chatter about how the game "should be" is subjective and largely drivel. Every game I have played has bits that I like and bits that I dislike, but you just have to take the good with the bad and get over it.

Of course it is subjective, how can you ask/answer this question any differently? It's an opinion poll. I agree with getting over it, but I think as consumers who spend a pretty good wad of cash on these things we should take responsibility and shout about things we don't want.

yabbadabba
08-09-2013, 16:57
Of course it is subjective, how can you ask/answer this question any differently? It's an opinion poll. I agree with getting over it, but I think as consumers who spend a pretty good wad of cash on these things we should take responsibility and shout about things we don't want. GW doesn't listen to that, its been proven over the past 20 years.

What you should take responsibility on is two-fold; either stop buying because you are not getting what you want, or start converting the rules to make it closer to your ideal.

IcedCrow
08-09-2013, 17:31
That and its not a solid majority that do not want something, its as always split half and half. Making one side happy only pisses the other side off.

Tastyfish
08-09-2013, 17:39
Thats your opinion. Youre welcome to it but just as you cant fathom why people like random charges, i cannot fathom a boring system where everything plays out the same every game.

The tense moment you are describing above is the 1/8" shuffle. May it rot in hell for all eternity. Lamest thing in the invention of wargaming short of the 5th edition forbidden rod.

The 1/8" shuffle only happened when you had two identical and unsupported units facing off against each other. In my experience once you start having skirmishers, support units and things like light cavalry getting involved the game moves away from that and becomes more around dealing with these smaller units who would otherwise either charge you to hold you in place or draw you out of position when they flee from a charge.

I'm not completely against random charges, as steadfast is my largest gripe - I think overpowered knights is more a problem with the points and statlines, in the same way that slaves are an issue with the current rules, rather than a problem with the ruleset. And steadfast (and a lot of the other movement changes) shrinks the game, if you see it as being a game where two armies are trying to outmanoeuvre the other.

IcedCrow
08-09-2013, 18:02
In my experience nearly every 7th ed game i played involved the shuffle. So much so it became an internet parody.

There was even a comic making fun of it where two cavalry lines storm each other then stop 14" from each other and begin polka dancing until one horse's hoof crossed the magic line and the other side charges.

Static charges imo suck because of that. Battle lines should never dance Around. They slammed into each other.

Ullis
08-09-2013, 18:04
Of course it is subjective, how can you ask/answer this question any differently? It's an opinion poll. I agree with getting over it, but I think as consumers who spend a pretty good wad of cash on these things we should take responsibility and shout about things we don't want.

If you are going to shout about something with the intent of getting a company to change it's products, you need a lot more than 1,000's of different people whining about their pet peeves. Complaints need to be as objective, fact based and verifiable as possible and not just an attempt to twist the game into something you want it to be ("more like Warmachine/40k" being my personal favourites").

This thread alone makes it quite clear there are a lot of people pulling in different directions.

HurrDurr
08-09-2013, 18:21
Yes it is true there are people who want exact opposites from warhammer but I also think there are topics where a large majority can be found in agreement (simply by considering how unlikely it is that every single change proposed in this thread has exactly 50% for and against it.)

@Yabba, I do believe they try to "push" their decisions in the direction their customers want, they just always lean towards the money making side of that direction. Last I saw that thread about what 8th did right it had great support, wouldn't you consider that GW trying to give the customer what they ask for? A better example would be the (overwhelmingly considered more balance) 8th army books. Yes it is expensive but the quality did improve, no?

Vipoid
08-09-2013, 18:24
In my experience nearly every 7th ed game i played involved the shuffle. So much so it became an internet parody.

There was even a comic making fun of it where two cavalry lines storm each other then stop 14" from each other and begin polka dancing until one horse's hoof crossed the magic line and the other side charges.

Static charges imo suck because of that. Battle lines should never dance Around. They slammed into each other.

As a question, are you sure static charges were responsible?

It seems more of an issue with the charging unit getting an insurmountable bonus against the defending unit, rather than being down to the charge mechanic itself.

ASF for the charger, the ability to prevent return attacks by breaking the front rank and (as a result) a good probability of breaking the defending unit. Not sure random charges would have made much difference if these had stayed.

Gradek
08-09-2013, 19:29
As a question, are you sure static charges were responsible?

It seems more of an issue with the charging unit getting an insurmountable bonus against the defending unit, rather than being down to the charge mechanic itself.

ASF for the charger, the ability to prevent return attacks by breaking the front rank and (as a result) a good probability of breaking the defending unit. Not sure random charges would have made much difference if these had stayed.

Random charges make the game more interesting/exciting though. Now you can try desperate charges and the threat range is increased against people trying to "run out the clock". It isn't so much the charge dance, but the "I am going to keep out of charge range" dance, that is now less successful.

IcedCrow
08-09-2013, 19:38
Yes static charges were the cause in previous editions. There was little to no risk mitigation in previous editions.

You could literally direct every game from start to finish and once the first 1/8" shuffle failed the game was often a foregone conclusion.

Also as noted above the running out the clock tactic was a static thing. Random distances mean you can pull off late game impossible charges.

These make the game, for me anyway, more exciting than a mathematical exercise that the prev editions were

Avian
08-09-2013, 19:50
Random charges also means the "It's just within reach - no, it's just outside reach" discussions have essentially disappeared. That's a great plus, if you ask me.

Von Wibble
08-09-2013, 20:03
My biggest gripe is that terrain doesn't do enough.

To give an example with woods - I would have that none skirmishing infantry cannot march through woods and half charge range (rounding up) if the foe are in woods, or if the majority of the unit started in woods.

I would also make woods impassable for cavalry, unless it is fast cavalry or has forest strider rules.

But I would then remove the mysterious terrain chart - this can easily be house-ruled or put into scenarios but as a general rule I find it time-consuming without offering that much reward. Ironically most of the results on the table favour infantry blocks over skirmishers (or at least penalise them less).

Caiphas Cain
08-09-2013, 20:09
I personally never encountered the 1/8" shuffle as described here, but random charge distances was a terrible "fix". I'll agree that getting the charge was often all you needed to win a combat, but Step Up and striking in initiative order would have been enough to migrate that. As it is, I think the bonus for charging is too small, but that's a topic for another thread.

Urgat
08-09-2013, 21:10
My biggest gripe is that terrain doesn't do enough.

To give an example with woods - I would have that none skirmishing infantry cannot march through woods and half charge range (rounding up) if the foe are in woods, or if the majority of the unit started in woods.

I would also make woods impassable for cavalry, unless it is fast cavalry or has forest strider rules.

But I would then remove the mysterious terrain chart - this can easily be house-ruled or put into scenarios but as a general rule I find it time-consuming without offering that much reward. Ironically most of the results on the table favour infantry blocks over skirmishers (or at least penalise them less).

I used to think that, but I changed my mind. Previously, terrain rules just meant that besides a couple select units, they were pretty much impassable terrain. The loss of steadfast and such in woods and rivers, considering the current meta, is really big already, I don't quite get why people always choose to forget that. Sure you can now walk through with relative security (unless you're cavalry), but that's if you ignore the opponent. Cavarly charges at units in woods can be quite effective, I don't consider woods and stuff non-entities at all.


I personally never encountered the 1/8" shuffle as described here

I got it pretty much every game, along with the "I'm in range-no you're not" argument mentionned above. Seems it's one of these unreconciliable subjects anyway.

ashc
08-09-2013, 21:16
Yes, the shuffle is a big problem. I now have the same issue if I want to play Mordheim, and I am put off by games that have simplistic I-GO-U-GO and simplistic charge distances as it leads to poor games of shuffling until your opponent makes a mistake to charge.

Maoriboy007
08-09-2013, 21:25
I think what this thread shows is that people want different things from their game, and GW are not going to satisfy everyone, ever.True to a point, but I still think a few tweaks would make the game a lot more satisfying to a greater range of players though, especially if the changes are moderate and sensible. Take steadfast for example, the subject comes up constantly enough that it seems to be an issue if we are honest enough to admit it, but are there really calls for its outright removal as seems to be constantly implied? Not really , most simply want disruption to negate it. Will this mean steadfast will disappear or become useless or disallow tarpitting ? Not really, steadfast would still be a potent tool and important part of the game, you'll simply have to put more effort into it and get of your a$$ and watch your flanks abit. IMO if you let a full set of ranks into your flank unscathed at the end of combat and get beaten, you fully deserve to break and run.
How many people think deathstars are a good part of the game and how many would actually complain about half victory points being reintroduced? Not quite so many by the sounds of it, again deathstars will be viable, but you have to put more effort into them.
IF death spells did multiple wounds and allowed MR/Ward saves would they suddenly be rendered impotent? I garauntee you they will still wreck armies and have players bemoaning their fate but wont generate even half the imternet rage.
Random charges would be far more acceptable if it allowed chargers to strike first again.

ashc
08-09-2013, 21:34
I wonder if many of the death spells could be altered to just do x amount of damage per rank of the unit affected. Would still hit deathstars hard, but a little fairer on moderate units.

Maoriboy007
08-09-2013, 21:42
I wonder if many of the death spells could be altered to just do x amount of damage per rank of the unit affected. Would still hit deathstars hard, but a little fairer on moderate units.*shrug* That's pretty much how VC wind of death works. The biggest gripes with the spells as far as I can see are the auto-kill, disallowing wards/MR and the disparity of statistic tests.

Ramius4
08-09-2013, 22:16
I personally never encountered the 1/8" shuffle as described here, but random charge distances was a terrible "fix".

A) It was in just about every game I ever played from 4th to 7th edition. I think you're being a bit unrealistic in your honest assessment here.

B) I completely disagree.


I wonder if many of the death spells could be altered to just do x amount of damage per rank of the unit affected. Would still hit deathstars hard, but a little fairer on moderate units.

Do some math on that bud. Such effects would effect small and large units in equal proportion.

HurrDurr
08-09-2013, 22:58
A) It was in just about every game I ever played from 4th to 7th edition. I think you're being a bit unrealistic in your honest assessment here.

B) I completely disagree.



Do some math on that bud. Such effects would effect small and large units in equal proportion.

deathstar is 4 ranks deep and 100 men wide, 400 men and each rank takes d6 wounds, 6 ranks deep and 5 men wide, 30 men take 6d6 wounds. Mathematically speaking if you go based off number of ranks "like some spells already do" then that would only punish deep ranks.


To the steadfast argument in general, imagine this. Flanking units suddenly becoming a threat would force stronger responses, which means more points spent in medium sized units across the board as a medium sized unit in the front and one in the flank would be more dangerous. My prediction is it would make deathstars a lot more dangerous of a choice, sure they would probably still have a place in the game. It wouldn't auto break the deathstar either because you still have to win combat (im assuming you have two units that equal the cost of the deathstar, adding anything more would require adding more to the deathstar's side of things and then it is too complex to flesh out in a thread.)

Anyone else feel like the same thing would happen? Maybe heavy cav like knights would have a stronger place in the game because medium units seem big enough to commit to without having the bodies to eat up the cav (im thinking 15-30 models here). A better question, does anyone LIKE the idea?

Caiphas Cain
08-09-2013, 23:06
Hey, if it means my opponent will have more than five units on the table, I'm all for it.

IcedCrow
08-09-2013, 23:42
Removing death stars, where a death star is a mega blob unit:

1) remove the all or nothing victory points
2) add the concept of taking and holding objectives to win scenarios instead of straight victory points. A mega blob army could only hold one objective.
3) cap how many characters can go into a unit
4) cap unit sizes
5) tweak steadfast so that it can be nullified or weakened under certain circumstances (such as disruption)

Gradek
08-09-2013, 23:46
Removing death stars, where a death star is a mega blob unit:

1) remove the all or nothing victory points
2) add the concept of taking and holding objectives to win scenarios instead of straight victory points. A mega blob army could only hold one objective.
3) cap how many characters can go into a unit
4) cap unit sizes
5) tweak steadfast so that it can be nullified or weakened under certain circumstances (such as disruption)

I love #'s 2&3.

For 3, you could call the rule "heroic ego" or something that says that the ego's of characters prevent them from joining the same unit.

Ramius4
09-09-2013, 02:29
deathstar is 4 ranks deep and 100 men wide, 400 men and each rank takes d6 wounds, 6 ranks deep and 5 men wide, 30 men take 6d6 wounds.

Oh, silly me! How could I have neglected to think of using the most ridiculous and unrealistic situation possible to make my point! :rolleyes:

HurrDurr
09-09-2013, 02:40
Oh, silly me! How could I have neglected to think of using the most ridiculous and unrealistic situation possible to make my point! :rolleyes:

well a more realistic one then, 40 man unit 10 wide. 1 dice per 10 men. 30 man unit 5 wide, 1 dice per 5 men. Even with real numbers......

Ramius4
09-09-2013, 02:45
well a more realistic one then, 40 man unit 10 wide. 1 dice per 10 men. 30 man unit 5 wide, 1 dice per 5 men. Even with real numbers......

Much more realistic, yes. But with realism in mind, it becomes just what I was saying. Direcly proportional. You're dodging the facts by presuming everything scales disproportionately in only one direction. Let's face it, nearly every unit you use, or encounter falls within the 5 to 10 models wide.

Over 100 games against various armies and opponents, those numbers would prove that the probability becomes equal whether it's a big or small unit.

A system where many spells had effects based on the number of ranks will invariably influence how people actually field their units over time, making the variance even less.

Maoriboy007
09-09-2013, 03:56
Removing death stars, where a death star is a mega blob unit:
1) remove the all or nothing victory pointsThe most elegant and simple way of dealing with the issue IMO. It was one of the things that worked fine in the last edition. Probably amend that characters and monsters have to be killed to gain their VP, but otherwise it would go a long way to fixing deathstars.

2) add the concept of taking and holding objectives to win scenarios instead of straight victory points. A mega blob army could only hold one objective.Coming up with balanced and fair scenarios is the problem, pitched battle is pretty balanced and Blood and Glory isn't too bad, the rest tend to be bearable or outright terrible.

3) cap how many characters can go into a unitMaybe, how many is too many? One ? Two?

4) cap unit sizes Do you mean limit per unit type or across the board?But I don't necessarily have a problem with large units,eternally steadfast units that you'll never get any points out of are more of a problem

5) tweak steadfast so that it can be nullified or weakened under certain circumstances (such as disruption) Steadfast is more a problem with Tarpits rather than Deathstars (although the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive) a Chaos Warrior Deathstar wont nessesarily rely on steadfast but it will simply not give up any points and beat you round the head with the bloody stump of your own arm for example.

cycloptic squirrel
09-09-2013, 04:47
I really like eighth overall, though there are some issues that I'd like to see modified - having large targets count as one rank, disruption canceling steadfast, upping both crown of command and standard of discipline to 55 points, a single roll on for the winds of magic that both players use, and a cannon fix.
The issue I absolutely want addressed though is building assault rules. As it is you can't have protracted combats, can't destroy the building (as amusing as it is when the terrain piece is a field tent), cut down an opponent if they flee, or simply be left in a position after an assault to do anything but assault again or reform. The poor building rules make the Watchtower scenario almost unplayable.

HurrDurr
09-09-2013, 05:27
Much more realistic, yes. But with realism in mind, it becomes just what I was saying. Direcly proportional. You're dodging the facts by presuming everything scales disproportionately in only one direction. Let's face it, nearly every unit you use, or encounter falls within the 5 to 10 models wide.

Over 100 games against various armies and opponents, those numbers would prove that the probability becomes equal whether it's a big or small unit.

A system where many spells had effects based on the number of ranks will invariably influence how people actually field their units over time, making the variance even less.

The facts?

fact #1 You said a spell that scales based on rank would affect small and large units equally (math says no)
fact #2 You said to do the math, well I did and it disagrees with you, check your math "bud"
fact #3 I didn't presume anything, I gave you an example of how that spell would work mechanically.

Over 100 games people still take deathstars and we have several spells more powerful than this hypothetical one.

Of course a system with many rank based spells would shape what type of units people take, oh wait we have auto death kill spells and they still take large units. Your presumptions are not well founded.

Ramius4
09-09-2013, 05:30
The facts?

fact #1 You said a spell that scales based on rank would affect small and large units equally (math says no)

Equal proportionally. Not equally. There's a difference.

D6 hits per rank for instance will still affect an average of 3.5 models per rank by the laws of probability. That's not disputable, and whether the unit is large or small, will affect an average percentage of its models over a large sample size.

A system such as you're talking about will just encourage wider formations as opposed to deeper ones if you're being punished for having more ranks.

I think we're both getting beyond the scope of the original debate however. The proposed rule I originally commented on, also had the idea of making the wizard's level also increase the power of such spells, whether it be +1 hit per level, or higher strength, etc. For me, that's what kills the idea. It just encourages a Level 4 even moreso than now, which is a step backwards.

Hawkkf
09-09-2013, 05:56
I think two of the major issues people have are the brb lores and some of the brb magic items. I believe that thy were a necessity at the beginning of the ediiton and were put in place as a transition set. My reasoning is that at the end of 7th, several armies had unit killing spells available only to them. By putting some of those spells in the main lores, it evened the playing field while as each book came out those spells disappeared. I would like to give the writers the benefit of the doubt and think that they always intended for the brb lores to be toned down in 9th after each individual lore got addressed. I expect the save or die spells to fade away like a bad memory.
In addition, MR should be treated like a deny the witch roll for individual models. MR1 - 6+, MR2 -5+, MR3 - 4+. On a succeful roll the model is immune to all effects from the spell. If a unit has MR then roll for the unit together.

Random charges are a necessity once they decided to add pre-measuring to stop the "1/8 shuffle". I am personally for the change on this premiss. The problem is that they implemented it poorly. A unit of infantry can charge nearly as far as calvary and not porportional to thier base movement. M4 has a range of 6-16 and M7 has a range of 9-19. Perhaps 2M+D6 would have been better recieved. This way M4 would have a range of 9-14 and M7 would have a range of 15-20. It seems more fitting to a unit that naturally moves almost twice as fast, but keeps a level of variation involved.

With steadfast I agree that the ranks should be counted after the first. I would however count having a total of 10 models or more flanking as +1 to the rank total and having a total of 10 models or more rear charging as +2 to the rank total when calculating number of ranks for steadfast. This would reasonably represent the pressure on even large units that being outmanuevered can cause. Even if there are less of them, if you are surrounded it may not seem that way.
Also I would count Infantry, Cavalry, and Warbeasts as 1 model, Monstrous anything as 2 models, Chariots as 3 models, and Monsters as 5 models for this purpose as well as determining ranks and horde status. (Basically this would make Monstrous things 3 wide for a rank bonus and 5 wide for horde.)

As for cannons, I am a big fan of the suggestion to scatter the starting point by D6-BS. Sure khorne cannons will be pinpoint accurate, but that is a book issue and they are demons of the god of war (which includes guns/cannons) afterall. I am not sure a standard empire cannon scattering 0-3" will make much of a difference, but it would take some of the certainty out of the cannon shot and bring the crew's BS into play. The issue with a cannon hitting a ridden monster isnt with the cannon being a template, but with the ridden monster rules themselves.
For ridden monsters I would consider all ranged attacks be directed against the monster mount; then after wounding, but before saves, each wound is transfered to the rider on a 5+ similar to how monster and handler does. I would also consider giving the rider either a +2 mounted ArmorSv instead of the normal +1 to represent how hard it is to reach the rider even when on another monstrous mount. In any case it should be more beneficial to sit on a dragon than a horse. *EDIT: Large Target adding the additional +1 ASv makes more sense than just any ridden monster by my logic.*

Other issues that others have far better ideas than me include, scenarios that work better, better scoring conditions, building rules that work, etc..

Lord Solar Plexus
09-09-2013, 09:39
IIRC the "go level 4 or go home" magic phase has been a problem since 6th edition.

It's not a problem in 8th. Of course I don't consider sf or random charges a problem but wonderful solutions, too, but I'm taking two L2's (and a warrior priest) to my next tournament without feeling like an underdog.



You could create a situation where basic core are wounding 250pnt monsters on a 2+ with no armor saves, that just doesn't seem right.


But it *does* feel right. You want a #6 spell to make them wound on 6's instead of 6's (S3 vs T6, +1 S)? Feel free to take Wyssan's if you want that.

Actually, it *is* already right. 500 points (wizard + core infantry unit) and the risk to lose your magic phase/wizard to a miscast and the risk not to get the spell through and fight your monster without magic backup to potentially kill a monster half that - sorry, how in the world can that feel wrong?



I don't know how you would handle dispelling with this kind of system.

No offense, but it isn't a system. It's a vaguely sketched notion of some aspects that somehow could under certain isolated circumstances and a limited point of view be perhaps changed in parts.

Quick addendum: Incidentally, it's not only (many) German tournaments which already address these grievances. Tribute in Cardiff does it to a large extent, too, e.g., Slaves are 0-1 per Clanrats/Stormvermin/Plague Monk unit, magic is more limited, you get LoS against the three offending spells, no Crown + Pendant etc. There's of course still sf and random charge ranges but you don't have to run straight at the biggest tarpit with your main unit.

leopard
09-09-2013, 11:10
Capping the number of characters in a unit fails a reasonably simple test though, why?, what would actually stop several characters being in a unit? you could make it more risky to do it, but actually banning it doesn't feel reasonable. Possibly allocate shooting hits based on the front rank? e.g. the first five hits go on whatever is in the first rank of five models. (Char, FC + 1 other is one hit on the char and four hits on the unit?, put a character wall and they get the first five hits - do more than five hits and the rest fall on the unit?)

Big units are perhaps better managed by adapting the leadership of larger units, make them harder to control as 'group mentality' takes over and the leadership of the commander has less impact (sort of like how a crowd is less intelligent than the individuals within it).

-1Ld for every ten models past the first? (20-29: -1Ld, 30-39: -2Ld etc).

Ideally combined with more actually using Ld tests to do stuff (ala swift reforms), perhaps charge reactions needing Ld tests?

Nothing stopping massive formations of cheap troops, just they become a little harder to use, need baby sitting with characters for the Ld boost.

More in favour of mechanics that make things harder to do, as opposed to outright banning them, provide a mechanic that makes some things less viable.

MLP
09-09-2013, 11:56
I actually quite like your idea Leopard. You could end up with a horde of leadership 5 troops who are steadfast, but that wouldn't matter if your general is near. It would make a bit more thought about character placement.

Lord Solar Plexus
09-09-2013, 12:02
Capping the number of characters in a unit fails a reasonably simple test though, why?


Because it makes deathstars possible, which many apparently think are cool. Oh wait...why would they do away with something a vast majority thinks is cool? If that's not the case then what's all the fuss about?

Anyways, if it's a huge problem capping it feels reasonable enough. I mean what's more reasonable than a simple rule that makes the game better? Everything else seems way too complicated. That doesn't mean it won't happen; lots of stuff is overly complicated already.

Your idea about Ld is horrendous. Ld is not about intelligence, it's about discipline and courage. Now infantry formations are the backbone of courage and solidity - it's the legion, testudo or square that remains defiant in the face of a thundering charge, and the unformed, unranked mob that breaks and runs. Any differences in natural propensity or drill are already reflected by different values. Large units need not break sooner but hold out longer.



Nothing stopping massive formations of cheap troops, just they become a little harder to use, need baby sitting with characters for the Ld boost.


Are you going in circles? I thought we wanted less characters, not drastically increase the need for them? Otherwise, what exactly are you changing? People already keep low-Ld stuff within the respective AoE's...?

MLP
09-09-2013, 12:59
I think if there ever was a character cap on units I should be a percentage of the unit's cost. Otherwise it would be an unfair advantage for army's with expensive characters compared to army's with cheap ones.

For example, the cap was 3 characters per unit could be a front rank full of ogre heroes. Whereas for a goblin unit 3 characters are nothing like the same amount of power.

draccan
09-09-2013, 13:19
I love 8th ed. The best ed. since 3rd. ed.

My only gripe is limited to 5-6 over the top spells that wipes whole units.

I think random charges is by far better than how it was before. I don't think that makes the game more random though. For me it has become a game of averages where there are not sure things, but calculated risks. It ups the ante and makes for much more interesting turns and doesn't shaft certain armies the way it was before. I still recall the cat and mouse game when trying to chase down wood elves and skirmishing undeads with horde armies.

8th ed. gave true importance to larges blocks of infantry, which is what Warhammer should be all about.

Perfect? No. But certainly better than it has ever been before.

theunwantedbeing
09-09-2013, 13:23
I think if there ever was a character cap on units I should be a percentage of the unit's cost. Otherwise it would be an unfair advantage for army's with expensive characters compared to army's with cheap ones.

For example, the cap was 3 characters per unit could be a front rank full of ogre heroes. Whereas for a goblin unit 3 characters are nothing like the same amount of power.

Sounds like a lot of upkeep, and what happens if the unit gets cut down with too many characters in...do they get bumped out of the unit?

Forcing command to always be at the front would be simpler.
That'd stop most instances of characters eating up the front rank entirely.

As for capping character's in units you could introduce a rule called Intrigue on the Field, where you line up all the characters in the unit and roll a D6 and count along the character's to see which one gets to give the unit his leadership. You'de only get to pick characters in the front rank of the unit and if you rolled above the number of characters then you'de get to pick. This would be done whenever the character chosen died/left the unit or a new character joined the front rank of the unit.

Similarly, you could introduce a magical interference rule where mages of differing lores wouldn't be able to gain their casting/dispel bonuses if they were in the same unit together.

IcedCrow
09-09-2013, 13:32
I've played games where you attach a single character to a unit.

The concept of a unit crammed with five characters so that your wizard with the uber spells can hide in the 2nd rank is a bit too gamey for my tastes.

Dark Aly
09-09-2013, 13:56
I'd just make it so all characters and command must be in the front rank, if the front rank isn't wide enough then you must make it wider or remove some characters from it.

IcedCrow
09-09-2013, 14:15
I wouldn't be opposed to that, though that by itself won't do anything to stop the death star phenomenon.

vorthrax
09-09-2013, 14:16
In my opinion, True Line of Sight is the biggest problem with 8th edition and indeed any miniatures war game.

draccan
09-09-2013, 14:21
true line of sight is a mess indeed.

Lord Solar Plexus
09-09-2013, 15:00
Forcing command to always be at the front would be simpler.
That'd stop most instances of characters eating up the front rank entirely.


Command already always must be at the front. That is what makes the whole problem of characters in the second rank possible. Just force characters to always be at the front, too. Want more than 2 in normal INF/any character in MI, just go wider, or leave out command. It totally doesn't matter that Gobbos are cheaper and weaker. In a horde (or 7-8 wide), they can still field many more. Or they could field a second and third unit with even more characters and double flank...

You could introduce everything but this is all very convoluted. Deathstars can be lead around the nose. That's extremely tactical, and you will pay for mistakes if they manage to catch something bigger and the opposition brought support, too. You often cannot win big 20:0 when you concentratre on gaining points from small support units but the DS can only charge one unit at a time either, so it's all about playing smarter.

Hawkkf
09-09-2013, 17:53
Here is a possible solution to the 'must take a level 4 wizard' issue. I am not sure if its been suggested before.
What if we simply change winds of magic to 1D6 power/dispel dice per wizard plus1D6 for the army.
Multiple low level wizards generate more dice, higher level wizards are better at casting/dispelling, and its scalable.
This comes with the assumption that uber spells get toned down.
How does this idea sound?

Urgat
09-09-2013, 19:37
It'd just encourage peope to take loads of lvl1, that wouldn't be any better. Nah, I think the best thing to do is just change the miscast table. Make it so the higher you roll on it, the worse it is. Then make the wizard roll on it with as many dice as he used to cast the miscast spell. That would have many advantages, among which that'd make low lvl wizards casting lower spells less killy, but also less risky, while higher lvl spells would be more risky (risk vs reward). That'd promot risk assessment, and not just automatically go for 6-dicing the 6th spell. Then the suggestion that wizard levels get deduced from the casting value instead of being added to the casting throw is, imho, an excellent one, that would help dispelling with lower wizards against high level casters (if the later want to make dispelling a certain spell difficult, they can just throw more dice anyway). Those two combined, and I believe pretty much everything would be fixed.

Von Wibble
09-09-2013, 19:39
I used to think that, but I changed my mind. Previously, terrain rules just meant that besides a couple select units, they were pretty much impassable terrain. The loss of steadfast and such in woods and rivers, considering the current meta, is really big already, I don't quite get why people always choose to forget that. Sure you can now walk through with relative security (unless you're cavalry), but that's if you ignore the opponent. Cavarly charges at units in woods can be quite effective, I don't consider woods and stuff non-entities at all.





In theory you'd be right, but so many woods are smaller than half the size of a horde unit that a unit has to try pretty hard to lose steadfast, so all that happens is you lose maybe an inch of movement. If a unit only had to touch a wood to lose steadfast then that's another matter.

My opinion on magic is that if you fix the uberspells then the problem goes away. I don't think the more recent lores such as High magic are overpowered at all.

My fix for spells like Purple Sun would be 2 things. 1 - it causes 1 wound with no armour saves allowed on a failed I check. This means MR can now actually work against it. 2 - If the distance the sun moves is insufficient to clear a unit you don't just plough it through that unit (making it possible to roll some battlelines in 1 turn) - you move the unit instead, by the minimum required, unless that unit is in combat. A lot of the lores would need a rethink though as spells like Flesh to Stone are so good for their cast value.

I would also have the miscast table set up so that you get a bonus to the roll based on wizard level, and a penalty based on the nu8mber of dice you attempted to cast the spell with. I would add extra results on the bottom end, some of which result in the spell not being cast or the opponent getting to choose the target (with definition of friendly and enemy switched in the case of area spells). That way, if a level 1 wizard tries to 6 dice a spell, the table would be such that it is very likely that they will blow themselves up without casting the spell. Whereas a level 4 throwing a couple of dice at a few spells should be pretty safe even if he rolls boxcars every time.

If you weaken magic you remove a powerful weapon against deathstars. For that reason (and I know GW would never do this) I am hugely in favour of unit caps. Best solution to the deathstar is to make it illegal after all!

Edit - Just noticed Urgat posted a similar idea to mine on miscasting above! Nice to see we agree in principal on at least 1 thing.

HurrDurr
09-09-2013, 19:59
Equal proportionally. Not equally. There's a difference.

D6 hits per rank for instance will still affect an average of 3.5 models per rank by the laws of probability. That's not disputable, and whether the unit is large or small, will affect an average percentage of its models over a large sample size.

A system such as you're talking about will just encourage wider formations as opposed to deeper ones if you're being punished for having more ranks.

I think we're both getting beyond the scope of the original debate however. The proposed rule I originally commented on, also had the idea of making the wizard's level also increase the power of such spells, whether it be +1 hit per level, or higher strength, etc. For me, that's what kills the idea. It just encourages a Level 4 even moreso than now, which is a step backwards.

No offense meant but, your point is redundant because it repeats itself. But seriously, that piece of information seemingly holds no value, that is also all information you can safely infer from my own example. So it seems like you were making my original point your own and serving it back to me.

It's the same as me saying dwellers does the same thing proportionately to a 100 man unit as a 10 man, sure that's true its one test per man.

Or a better example, a cannon does the same thing to a slave slave as it does a dragon D6 wounds wounding on 2's. Was this information useful? Not in my eyes, it won't help you make a real in-game decision. Your concern is the cannon shooting your dragon, you can make that assessment without considering the cannons effect when shooting a slave.

It affects an average of 3.5 models per rank, you have all the information needed at that point, so you seem to state the obvious.

I agree with you on the point that a wizard increasing the power of spells might not fix the go lvl4 or go home, but that depends on a lot of factors, what if every wizard brought 2 power/dispel dice, suddenly a lvl 4 with 2+ to dispel and 2 dice is facing off against 4 dice at +1 to cast. (remember in my hypothetical scenario spells are weaker overall so more powerdice wouldnt mean what it does in 8th.)

Kayosiv
09-09-2013, 20:14
The best solution to the character limitation in units is... 2 characters per unit. Why 2? Because it's not too many and its also not too few. I have never needed or seen anyone actually need more than 2 characters in a unit with the exception of hidden characters like assassins, which should probably be exempt from the rule due to their hidden nature.

Sometimes you want a general and a battle standard bearer in the same unit, or a wizard and a bodyguard character in the same unit, but after that things get a little silly. Blocking off the entire front rank is silly and I don't believe the arguement that skaven/goblins/bretonnia/ogres "need" to do it in order to function. I've fought all of those armies and any unit with 2 characters in it, even a goblin unit, is decently formidable compared to its point cost.

I don't like that you can theoretically keep piling points into a unit to make it invincible/have a million high quality attacks. Warhammer is supposed to be about epic heroes having cinamatic battles with one another, not forming a mob of likewise mighty and thought-to-be rare best of the best champions to go around and slaughter everything because nobody can touch such a large group of them... while their buddies reach from behind them but also hide behind them too so they don't get hurt.

It also makes very little sense to keep all the commanders or champions in one place in the army from a tactical military perspective. You don't make a squad of lieutenants and you CERTAINLY don't make a platoon of generals.

IcedCrow
09-09-2013, 20:16
walling off a unit with tough to kill characters all in the front rank is part of the points denial game.

Kayosiv
09-09-2013, 20:17
I don't think many players like that game.