PDA

View Full Version : 40k 7th edition changes and implications for Fantasy



Clockwork
18-05-2014, 11:29
So I don't really follow 40k at all, but catching up on the rumours for the new edition this weekend I've seen that they are introducing Fantasy style magic phases for Psychic powers. Makes sense I guess, but with both systems being so similar it got me wondering whether we might see any potential changes to future Fantasy editions.

Specifically, I spotted this:


Power and dispel dice is d6 + total power level of all your side's psykers. Double 1's and double 6's are miscasts, but double 6's are irresistable.

Its the bold part of that sentence that interested me, as it sounds very similar to how the Winds of Magic use to function. What do we think of a similar change to Fantasy? Has anybody who is closer to 40k seen anything else that sounds like it could be ported over?

theJ
18-05-2014, 12:06
Its the bold part of that sentence that interested me, as it sounds very similar to how the Winds of Magic use to function. What do we think of a similar change to Fantasy? Has anybody who is closer to 40k seen anything else that sounds like it could be ported over?

Well, we've only got four bits of facts thrown out;
*Magic/Psychic Phase; As you say, sounds very fantasiey... and I for one think D6+wizard levels sounds pretty good, tbh. It's definitely based on the fantasy version, but on its own, it doesn't really mean anything.
*Daemon summoning... for everyone!!!!1!1elevenone!one; Cool idea, seemingly quite horribly executed(then again, that's pretty much par for the course over there)would kinda like to see it for Warriors and Beastmen ONLY, but no direct connection to fantasy.
*Moar Missions; Other than the addition of "objective cards", it's not really much of a change. GW has been pushing varied objectives in both settings since... 5th 40K, I think...? It's entirely possible we'll get card in fantasy as well come 9th, and I would go as far as expecting more missions, deployments and objectives than we've got right now - It is not, however, something that directly links fantasy and 40k.
*Unbound; The most debated change, the ability to bring whatever models you damn well please to the table and still count as completely legal... no connection whatsoever to fantasy, thank the gods.

Overall... how paranoid are you feeling? It'd be hard to fit... pretty much any of these 'cept moar missions into fantasy, but none of them would be impossible.

Clockwork
18-05-2014, 13:11
Yeah, I was trying to decide whether power dice = D6 + Magic Levels would encourage more Level 4s, or less of them. It seems that in that context, a level 4 would be a much risker proposition as losing it would mean not just the loss of his spells, but also the additional power dice and dispel dice that would be generated. Whereas running multiple level 2s or 1s and/or in combination with one or more level 3, would mean that whilst the loss of one of those wizards would carry an impact, it wouldn't be so severe.

For instance, if you had a level 4 and a level 1 Scroll caddy and your LV4 Cascaded, you'd now only be generating D6+1 dice instead of D6+5.
But if you had three level 2s and Cascaded one of them, you'd still be generating D6+4.

I actually quite like that balancing trick. Presumably there'd need to be an upper limit like now where you can only generate a maximum of 12 dice per phase, though.

artisturn
18-05-2014, 19:20
What I am expecting to be ported over from 40k to Fantasy in the 9th edition is going to be Allies,data slate armies and formations. Of course GW will have a more fantasy sounding label then data slates.

Avian
18-05-2014, 20:03
The magic system is pretty much the 6th edition Fantasy one, it seems like. If ported over to FB it would probably encourage lvl 2 spam, since they are the cheapest per level IIRC.

Spiney Norman
18-05-2014, 21:00
The magic system is pretty much the 6th edition Fantasy one, it seems like. If ported over to FB it would probably encourage lvl 2 spam, since they are the cheapest per level IIRC.

It kind of works in 40k (only 'kind of', there are too many armies that have no Psykers for it to really work well) because the maximum level psyker you can get is (I think) 3, and other than a few extreme examples like grey knights and psyker brotherhoods (which they will hopefully change) most armies won't be able to get more than two Psykers anyway.

It would be an abject disaster if we went back to the days of battery wizards from 6th edition.

CommanderCax
18-05-2014, 22:01
The magic system is pretty much the 6th edition Fantasy one, it seems like. If ported over to FB it would probably encourage lvl 2 spam, since they are the cheapest per level IIRC.

It swings back and forth throughout the editions. In 3rd ed. each magic user had a certain number of magic points. In 4th and 5th ed. it was random (i.e. 2D6 magic cards) and irrespective of the number of magic users. In 6th and 7th ed. it depended on the amount and level of your magic users, because people were complaining during 4th/5th ed. it was of no use to take more magic users than the opponent (as it has no effect on the amount of magic dice/cards you got). In 8th edition it was again random (i.e. 2D6 dice (instead of cards like in 4th/5th ed.), because people were complaining during 6th/7th ed. a non-random amount was not according to the Warhammer background (ie. Winds of Magic). In 9th ed. it (is said to) depend(s) again on the amount and level of your magic users, because people were complaining during 8th ed. it was of no use to take more magic users than the opponent...

We are running in circles it seems... :shifty:

Clockwork
18-05-2014, 22:14
It would be an abject disaster if we went back to the days of battery wizards from 6th edition.

Yeah, I didn't realise until later some of the implications - 6 units of Horrors giving +6 dice, for instance, on top of a level 1/2 Hero and a Level 3/4 Daemon...

Daenerys Targaryen
19-05-2014, 01:09
Yeah, I didn't realise until later some of the implications - 6 units of Horrors giving +6 dice, for instance, on top of a level 1/2 Hero and a Level 3/4 Daemon...

I could live with going back to a 6th/7th style of dice generation, (ie: D6 + total wizard levels, provided that;
1. We still keep a hard cap on the maximum number of dice per casting/dispel pool in order to avoid excessive spamming of wizards like what VC's/DoC/DE's were capable of.

2. The pool hard-caps scale according to the game size.
(ie: 1000pts or less = max 8 dice per pool, 1001-2000pts = 12 max, 2001-2999 = 16 or 18 max, etc...)

The bearded one
19-05-2014, 01:27
Overall... how paranoid are you feeling? It'd be hard to fit... pretty much any of these 'cept moar missions into fantasy, but none of them would be impossible.

All those changes are actually laughably easy to port over to fantasy.

- Change winds of magic from 2d6 to 'total levels + d6'
- add a daemon summon spell or daemon summon lore, available to every wizard that wants to.
- Think of more missions and objectives, and add them to fantasy. This one requires the most creative thought to implement because you have to actually think of these missions, suited to fantasy's victorypoint system. Still really easy to add to fantasy, and one that seems pretty necessary to me, because games are nearly 100% of the time just about killing more of your enemy than vice versa, rather than objective play.
- unbound; remove all the percentage restrictions, and let people do whatever the heck they want.

It's really, really easy to port over those changes. Many are probably far from balanced, but it's no rocketscience to copy-paste it with adjustments.

theJ
19-05-2014, 07:48
All those changes are actually laughably easy to port over to fantasy.

- Change winds of magic from 2d6 to 'total levels + d6'
- add a daemon summon spell or daemon summon lore, available to every wizard that wants to.
- Think of more missions and objectives, and add them to fantasy. This one requires the most creative thought to implement because you have to actually think of these missions, suited to fantasy's victorypoint system. Still really easy to add to fantasy, and one that seems pretty necessary to me, because games are nearly 100% of the time just about killing more of your enemy than vice versa, rather than objective play.
- unbound; remove all the percentage restrictions, and let people do whatever the heck they want.

It's really, really easy to port over those changes. Many are probably far from balanced, but it's no rocketscience to copy-paste it with adjustments.

Yeah... you're right. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that :wtf:

Urgat
19-05-2014, 08:52
Wow, that magic thing would start the reign of the army of lvl1 goblin shamans :D
Oh, and it sounds horrible, but really, it is not. Goblin shamans (especially the nigh gob kind) tend to explode regularly. that'd actually be fun, fielding some lvl 1, watching them explode or succeed, and not really caring, because you just didn't get your whole magic defense crippled by an exploding lvl4...


The magic system is pretty much the 6th edition Fantasy one, it seems like. If ported over to FB it would probably encourage lvl 2 spam, since they are the cheapest per level IIRC.

If we keep all the other restrictions, it shouldn't be quite as bad.

Avian
19-05-2014, 09:06
GW's been going backwards and forwards on whether or not wizards should generate their own dice (spamming could be a problem), and there being a set number each turn (army size scaling could be a problem). They have yet to hit a good medium, if you ask me. Maybe you could get D6 dice and then each wizard generated a number equal to their level minus one.

Ultimate Life Form
19-05-2014, 09:28
Wow, that magic thing would start the reign of the army of lvl1 goblin shamans :D
Oh, and it sounds horrible, but really, it is not. Goblin shamans (especially the nigh gob kind) tend to explode regularly. that'd actually be fun, fielding some lvl 1, watching them explode or succeed, and not really caring, because you just didn't get your whole magic defense crippled by an exploding lvl4...


What you describe sounds an awful lot like Skaven. I may have to have you sign a cease and desist declaration. Only Skaven are allowed to draw fun from self-crippling and exploding troops. Greenskins are liable to moan and complain.

Alltaken
19-05-2014, 13:32
Magic should be allways scale acording to the game point and not the casters lvl. Too much magic screws over low point games (vortexes of doom being the main ofender), but the bigger the game, the less they do.

I also think that wizard lvl should primarily be about spell generation, lessen bonus to cast to +1/2 for lvls 1-2/3-4 and people will be tempted to take lower lvled casters. This can also be horrible with the current dice generation system.

I think dice generation has to be more dependant on D3's than D6, variations arent that hard so you still have wavering magic, but more stability and consistency.

From my servoskull

gaialily
19-05-2014, 13:55
It would cause a problem for reign of chaos table. They would have to rewrite the rules.

theJ
19-05-2014, 14:10
So... am I the only one who's actually fine with people getting a stronger magic phase by investing more points into magic?

An army that brings along five high level wizards SHOULD get a stronger magic phase than an army that only brings along a scroll caddie... right?

Completely shutting down is another matter, of course... which is why the big "reconsiderations" should probably be dispel dice generation, rather than power dice.
-When the five wizards cast, the single caddie can stop a spell or two, but most will get through - just as it should.
-When the caddie casts.... s/he'll probably never get to actually land a single spell in the entire game, IF aside, which is... less good.
I'd say 40K's "deny the witch" system is actually superior in this aspect... with the caveat that any pretense of skill is thrown out the window.

hm... how about this idea: Drop Dispel dice, instead, each wizard may attempt to dispel a single enemy spell per phase. To do so, you roll a dice, with a lvl1 wizard successfully dispelling on a 6, a lvl2 on 5+, lvl3 on 4+, lvl4 on 3+, and the mythical semi-official lvl5 successfully dispelling on a 2+.
This would create a meaningful choice between a single high level wizard(for shutting down single megaspells), or multiple low level ones(for better coverage), while still allowing a few spells through no matter how magically outnumbered either side is.
An alternative to the above would be to swap "may dispel one spell" for "may dispel versus one wizard", in order to make a little more dispelling happen, as well as getting closer to "proper" magical duels.

Thoughts?

SpanielBear
19-05-2014, 14:19
So... am I the only one who's actually fine with people getting a stronger magic phase by investing more points into magic?

An army that brings along five high level wizards SHOULD get a stronger magic phase than an army that only brings along a scroll caddie... right?

Completely shutting down is another matter, of course... which is why the big "reconsiderations" should probably be dispel dice generation, rather than power dice.
-When the five wizards cast, the single caddie can stop a spell or two, but most will get through - just as it should.
-When the caddie casts.... s/he'll probably never get to actually land a single spell in the entire game, IF aside, which is... less good.
I'd say 40K's "deny the witch" system is actually superior in this aspect... with the caveat that any pretense of skill is thrown out the window.

hm... how about this idea: Drop Dispel dice, instead, each wizard may attempt to dispel a single enemy spell per phase. To do so, you roll a dice, with a lvl1 wizard successfully dispelling on a 6, a lvl2 on 5+, lvl3 on 4+, lvl4 on 3+, and the mythical semi-official lvl5 successfully dispelling on a 2+.
This would create a meaningful choice between a single high level wizard(for shutting down single megaspells), or multiple low level ones(for better coverage), while still allowing a few spells through no matter how magically outnumbered either side is.
An alternative to the above would be to swap "may dispel one spell" for "may dispel versus one wizard", in order to make a little more dispelling happen, as well as getting closer to "proper" magical duels.

Thoughts?

I'd certainly give it a go as a house rule. Maybe scale down the gap between levels, to keep lvl 1's and 3's in play. Say, dispel on a 5+ if 1 or 2, 3+ if 3 or 4. 3+ still for the archmage lvl 5, but they can attempt to dispel two spells per phase instead of one.

Dwarf runesmiths- do they still have levels? If so, 3+ for the 1-2 equivalent, 2+ for the 3-4.

theunwantedbeing
19-05-2014, 14:30
So... am I the only one who's actually fine with people getting a stronger magic phase by investing more points into magic?

No but when the 7th ed power creep got going they ruined the system that worked.
It's the reason we have a 12 dice cap at the moment, as some armies were generating closer to 20 dice and being able to throw 10+ spells a turn that the enemy had no answer for.

I like the suggestion of removing the casting bonuses as it removes the need for that lord level mage who denies the army a fighter lord general.
One thing I'de like to see is dice from the winds of magic being stored in your own mages/items so you can make use of lulls in power or boost them to useable levels and for a turn at least amplify lower level mages to a slightly more useful level.

Bound spells for example are much better now they use power dice to work, as before they just went off so anyone with access to a bunch of them immediately had an unfair advantage.

Kingrick
19-05-2014, 16:23
Magic should be allways scale acording to the game point and not the casters lvl. Too much magic screws over low point games (vortexes of doom being the main ofender), but the bigger the game, the less they do.

I also think that wizard lvl should primarily be about spell generation, lessen bonus to cast to +1/2 for lvls 1-2/3-4 and people will be tempted to take lower lvled casters. This can also be horrible with the current dice generation system.

I think dice generation has to be more dependant on D3's than D6, variations arent that hard so you still have wavering magic, but more stability and consistency.

From my servoskull

That's an interesting thought. Roll a D3 for each 500 points your playing? works out to 4D3's at 2000. might be a little too minimal for 500points though. Maybe 2D3 per 1000 points. Then you would have a little more to work with in the magic phase at 500pt games.

Alltaken
19-05-2014, 17:36
So... am I the only one who's actually fine with people getting a stronger magic phase by investing more points into magic?

An army that brings along five high level wizards SHOULD get a stronger magic phase than an army that only brings along a scroll caddie... right?

Completely shutting down is another matter, of course... which is why the big "reconsiderations" should probably be dispel dice generation, rather than power dice.
-When the five wizards cast, the single caddie can stop a spell or two, but most will get through - just as it should.
-When the caddie casts.... s/he'll probably never get to actually land a single spell in the entire game, IF aside, which is... less good.
I'd say 40K's "deny the witch" system is actually superior in this aspect... with the caveat that any pretense of skill is thrown out the window.

hm... how about this idea: Drop Dispel dice, instead, each wizard may attempt to dispel a single enemy spell per phase. To do so, you roll a dice, with a lvl1 wizard successfully dispelling on a 6, a lvl2 on 5+, lvl3 on 4+, lvl4 on 3+, and the mythical semi-official lvl5 successfully dispelling on a 2+.
This would create a meaningful choice between a single high level wizard(for shutting down single megaspells), or multiple low level ones(for better coverage), while still allowing a few spells through no matter how magically outnumbered either side is.
An alternative to the above would be to swap "may dispel one spell" for "may dispel versus one wizard", in order to make a little more dispelling happen, as well as getting closer to "proper" magical duels.

Thoughts?

The problem becomes when its an escalation for lvl 4 casters, we hated scroll caddies since many an army didnt have the same use for a lvl4 in 7th and you were obliged to take them or be stomped.

The problem is, lvls have to be an advantage, and still it has to be viable to take lower leveled casters. Right now lvl 3s make no sense unless you're short on points, lvl 1 arent regularly taken since any lvl 4 has a good dispelling chance.

I think regulating casting bonuses (+1 or +2), removing dispell bonus and using 2D3 every 1k sort of solves most magic issues. Dispel could be the bigest dice out of every pair, or the bigest dice (half the pool) since you dont get bonus to dispell and dice diference between cast and defense arent so big you still have chances and defense has a solid chance too

From my servoskull

SuperHappyTime
19-05-2014, 18:34
Really, the rules for dice generation aren't too bad. Channeling should be changed though, maybe roll one die per wizard level, or reduce the required roll based on level (Lvl 1 = 6, Lvl 2 = 5, Lvl 3 = 4, etc)

Von Wibble
19-05-2014, 19:22
As far as levels of wizards go, imo it needs to be an army book change.

And the change is simple - have each army have a wizard with a predetermined level and no options to change it (maybe an exception with things like Daemon Princes, and maybe more magic items allowing the bulk of the +1 level).

So, for example, Empire wizards are level 1, and wizard lords are level 3. Empire only get a level 4 by taking a special character like Thyrus or Balthasar.

Dark Elves otoh have wizard levels 2 and 4 to reflect their superior abilities at magic.

Like the changes to bsb weaponry, its something that can't be implemented overnight. But its the only way to make level 3 wizards see play. If you change the cost (or effects) of the upgrade to level 4, you make level 4s not see play instead and just change the problem rather than solving it.

I think dice generation is fine. I just think the miscast table needs changing to reflect the level of the wizard casting the spell and the number of dice used. I would have the table work out so that a level 1 using 6 dice is very likely to roll a result on the miscast table resulting in him dying, and the opponent getting to choose the target of the spell cast. Meanwhile, a level 4 wizard using 2 dice would just take a wound on a 6 with no saves of any type allowed.

Obviously the rules would have to change so the miscast applies before the spell is cast.

Katastrophe
19-05-2014, 19:38
How about these

1) Winds = d6 + (1 for each level 1-2 and 2 for each level 3-4)

this would make winds random and powered up by batteries but not the the extent that it would be problematic

2) casting/dispel = usable dice per cast/dispel is level +1

this would end the stupidity of 6 dicing level 1s throwing spells high on the chart.
this would also encourage players to default down the list for their low level casters rather than take the #6 spell

3) bonus to cast/dispel = level of mage being used

self explanatory and would prevent breaking the current mechanic and spell cast difficulties

4) build the miscast possibility around the number of 1s rolled in the cast attempt (i.e. a d6 on the miscast table for each 1 rolled and subtract the casters level)

would make all casts slightly dangerous but the higher the level of the caster, the less chance for them to be harmed. A L4 would be unlikely to suffer any harm while casting with 2-3 dice unless he rolls 3 ones then follows it up with a really bad roll - but this would be a statical anomaly. Casting with 5 dice may be far more dangerous.

AverageBoss
19-05-2014, 19:44
My ideal magic system would be:

Lv1/2 get +1 to cast.
Lv 3+ get +2 to cast.
No bonuses to dispell.
Base casting dice is equal to 6+D6 (max twelve).
Base dispell dice is equal to 7 (max twelve).
Remove miscasts and IF, they harm some armies too much (tomb kings), and hardly effect others (High Elves).

Simple and quick, with the primary benefit of higher level mages is having more spells (is not versatility benefit enough?). In the case of 7 dice versus 7 dice, the caster still has a slight leg up with a +1 or 2 to casting attempts.

Andy p
19-05-2014, 21:17
It would cause a problem for reign of chaos table. They would have to rewrite the rules.

That's a sensible and well spotted point. So you can be sure they will ignore/miss that completely.

Mozzamanx
19-05-2014, 21:32
I doubt many people would object to the RoC table being rewritten, and it's not like it can get much worse.

Andy p
20-05-2014, 08:25
I doubt many people would object to the RoC table being rewritten, and it's not like it can get much worse.

Someone else being sensible. Dammit stop that!

Gorbad Ironclaw
20-05-2014, 09:45
I think k its a bit of a shame that 40k now have almost the same magic system as fantasy. One of the few things I thought they did right was get rid of the whole mini-game of the magic/psychic phase. I liked that the psychers ability to use his powers was build into the model, it solved the scaling issue and didn't impose requirements on enemy list construction either. Ideally I'd just have magic be another ability that you can activate if you want to, but I suppose the horrific failure scenario is bound to be included somewhere so a Ld (or similar) test seems like a decent compromise.

underscore
20-05-2014, 11:19
I doubt many people would object to the RoC table being rewritten, and it's not like it can get much worse.
I'm sure it'll just be changed so that you roll a 2D6 in the magic phase and treat it as it's own thing.

static grass
20-05-2014, 12:44
I noticed that the more recent box art shows units in a skirmish formation regardless as to whether they skirmish or not. Now I know this might just be to make the box look like better value or to show off the painting but I am wondering if GW thinks that the models look better this way and should be played this way?

I mention this as block regiments are a bit inflexible with regards to objectives. I don't think it's very easy for a unit to grab more than 1 objective during a game as might be expected in the new 40k.

Urgat
20-05-2014, 13:00
Sorry for the utterly pragmatic and down to earth reply, but I think it just allows the minis to be more easily seen. The first plastic set I bought waaaaaaaay back was those monopose black orcs. I'm sure you know what's coming next.

Ultimate Life Form
20-05-2014, 13:22
Sorry for the utterly pragmatic and down to earth reply, but I think it just allows the minis to be more easily seen. The first plastic set I bought waaaaaaaay back was those monopose black orcs. I'm sure you know what's coming next.

No, I'm not. However one of my biggest problems (if you can call it that) with Warhammer is the R&F mechanic. I absolutely love big infantry blocks, but I'd love them even more if the models would actually line up neatly. I'm sure we've all heard (and experienced firsthand) the woes of weapons getting in the way left and right, models having awkward poses or simply being too big to fit properly in a unit. I'm one of those people who had to dock their poor Skaven Slaves' tails (*sniff*) so they could actually be handled on the table. Removing casualties can be a pain, let alone the requirement of rebuilding your army after every game. It gets on my nerves quickly.

In other words, I think the R&F units are Warhammer's biggest asset and detriment at the same time. In times where models tend to get bigger and bigger, but bases do not, one runs into problems quickly. I'm always jealous of those 40k Orks simply for the fact that they can afford to be twice as big.

Do I think R&F should be abandoned? No. But I also wouldn't be terribly upset if they do.

Now just imagine for one second the inevitable vetstorm...

theJ
20-05-2014, 13:59
@ULF: Hypothetically, as someone who's played the game for longer than me(I think? Kinda started with 8th...), what would be your reaction to introducing "loose formation" as a middleground between current formations and skirmishers? In essence:
*Tight Formation=work as currently, used by disciplined units such as state troopers or citizen-militia.
*Loose Formation=moves 1" apart, must have as many ranks as files, can charge in any direction, and get rank bonuses but no steadfast(or possibly the other way around, haven't quite decided yet), used by "rabble" or "mob" style units, such as marauders, free companies, and pretty much everything from the O&G book.
*Skirmish Formation=Free, basically 40k style movement and -1 to be hit with shooting attacks, but no advantages from ranks whatsoever.

Requiring a massive errata to implement is a considerate downside, I guess, but it would certainly be both easier to use(I think?), AND be far more fitting("cinematic"?) for the... 'less organised' units(and armies) out there.

Ultimate Life Form
20-05-2014, 14:12
The Loose Formation has already been introduced in the Lustria campaign book so it's not unprecedented. Basically it was a way for block units to move through forests and such. Lustria, as you may know, is a heavily arboreous place, and under the old 6th and 7th Edition movement rules, as soon as a R&F unit entered a forest they were basically stuck there for the rest of the game. To remedy this they could make use of the Loose Formation, gaining some characteristics of Skirmishers but losing the advantages of their R&F formation.

Heck, in 3rd Edition, there was an entire chapter with a dozen or so different formations that could be assumed. It's not like no one ever thought of it, and it is hardly a new concept. It's just that when playing a game what you care about is moving forward and charging the enemy, not exacting overly complicated maneuvers like it's a parade or something (not to mention it usually cost you the entire movement allowance for the turn), so the concept was dropped.

Everything's possible if you use your imagination.

The Faceless Man
20-05-2014, 14:50
I highly doubt 9th edition will come this year. There would just be too much going on for one year

EvanM
20-05-2014, 16:01
Dont they need to release beastmen, Brettonia, and skaven before 9th edition? if so, earliest possible would be in november (right before christmas to maximize income).

I would like to see it viable to NOT take magic and not die horribly. That shouldnt be impossible. But I also think that if you get a magical advantage (say having 2 level 4's against my lvl 2) then you should sort of dominate the magic phase (at least not do exactly the same amount of spells).

EvanM
20-05-2014, 16:04
Okay do you know how hard it would be to use armies of the scale that fantasy is played at and have them all skirmish? even if you are high elves you still probably deploy 90 men at least...
Orcs and goblins players, skaven players, empire players..... it would take an hour to move the 300 models we deploy.

Ultimate Life Form
20-05-2014, 16:06
Apparently you've never heard of Warhammer Skirmish... :shifty:

EvanM
20-05-2014, 16:27
yeah but they play with like 30 guys. thatd be fine.

theunwantedbeing
20-05-2014, 17:00
I noticed that the more recent box art shows units in a skirmish formation regardless as to whether they skirmish or not. Now I know this might just be to make the box look like better value or to show off the painting but I am wondering if GW thinks that the models look better this way and should be played this way?

It's to show off the product better by making it look more dynamic, that's all.

Charistoph
21-05-2014, 17:16
@ULF: Hypothetically, as someone who's played the game for longer than me(I think? Kinda started with 8th...), what would be your reaction to introducing "loose formation" as a middleground between current formations and skirmishers? In essence:
*Tight Formation=work as currently, used by disciplined units such as state troopers or citizen-militia.
*Loose Formation=moves 1" apart, must have as many ranks as files, can charge in any direction, and get rank bonuses but no steadfast(or possibly the other way around, haven't quite decided yet), used by "rabble" or "mob" style units, such as marauders, free companies, and pretty much everything from the O&G book.
*Skirmish Formation=Free, basically 40k style movement and -1 to be hit with shooting attacks, but no advantages from ranks whatsoever.

Requiring a massive errata to implement is a considerate downside, I guess, but it would certainly be both easier to use(I think?), AND be far more fitting("cinematic"?) for the... 'less organised' units(and armies) out there.

That's a fun idea, but some units should be able to choose a formation (ex: State Troops), while others are stuck in one. Skirmishers are always stuck in Skirmish formation, while Gors are always Loose, and Ironbreakers are Tight, for example.

I would also have Loose formation just count every other Rank for Bonus, for simplicity.

Urgat
21-05-2014, 17:41
No, I'm not.

You didn't try very hard then. Plastic sets back then would show ranked units in skirmish formation. Weeeeh. Nothing new, same reason, 20 years ago. Wasn't so hard, right?


Now just imagine for one second the inevitable vetstorm...
Can't say I'd be especially happy to have to move my hundreds of gobs one by one. Nor would my opponent, I guess.

Ultimate Life Form
21-05-2014, 17:52
You didn't try very hard then. Plastic sets back then would show ranked units in skirmish formation. Weeeeh. Nothing new, same reason, 20 years ago. Wasn't so hard, right?
Well, considering I didn't play Warhammer 20 years ago, and I have no way of knowing how the boxes used to look back then, I think you're asking a bit much there, so you don't have to treat me like an idiot.


Can't say I'd be especially happy to have to move my hundreds of gobs one by one. Nor would my opponent, I guess.
Yes. Because what Warhammer players always do is move their units one model at a time. There's absolutely no way to circumvent this problem. :rolleyes:

SpanielBear
21-05-2014, 19:12
Well, considering I didn't play Warhammer 20 years ago, and I have no way of knowing how the boxes used to look back then, I think you're asking a bit much there, so you don't have to treat me like an idiot.


Yes. Because what Warhammer players always do is move their units one model at a time. There's absolutely no way to circumvent this problem. :rolleyes:

Well, if you want all models to skirmish, then yeah that is an issue. A skirmish movement tray for 100 gobbos? It would be the size of a realm of battle board!

theJ
21-05-2014, 20:12
That's a fun idea, but some units should be able to choose a formation (ex: State Troops), while others are stuck in one. Skirmishers are always stuck in Skirmish formation, while Gors are always Loose, and Ironbreakers are Tight, for example.

I would also have Loose formation just count every other Rank for Bonus, for simplicity.

Mayhap. The rules I posted were mostly to get the basic idea across, but as with any rule, playtesting(and input from people with more than one edition worth of experience*cough cough*) would be needed to determine exactly which rules would apply to each formation.

For those worrying about basing... I'd recon a new range of movement trays with spaces built in would be needed, in the vein of the 'War of the Ring' ones*. While at it, I'd probably scrap the "reform into tight formation when entering melee combat" thingy from the current skirmisher rules and make the resultant bonus attacks from packing more models into a smaller frontage one of the advantages units in tight formation gets.

*GW ought to be overjoyed - they get to sell extra stuff :)

SpanielBear
21-05-2014, 20:49
Mayhap. The rules I posted were mostly to get the basic idea across, but as with any rule, playtesting(and input from people with more than one edition worth of experience*cough cough*) would be needed to determine exactly which rules would apply to each formation.

For those worrying about basing... I'd recon a new range of movement trays with spaces built in would be needed, in the vein of the 'War of the Ring' ones*. While at it, I'd probably scrap the "reform into tight formation when entering melee combat" thingy from the current skirmisher rules and make the resultant bonus attacks from packing more models into a smaller frontage one of the advantages units in tight formation gets.

*GW ought to be overjoyed - they get to sell extra stuff :)

I actually tried something like that, back when dryads were still skirmishing (*sniff* :(). I used empty bases between each model to make a unit that kept a skirmishing profile but where ranks were clearly defined. It works great for smaller units of up to 20 models, but after that it gets unwieldy.

I think it's fine for the loose formation, like you say, my comment about gobbos was more directed at the suggestion that fantasy units should all skirmish, all the time. It just is impractical.

Avian
21-05-2014, 21:49
The Lustria expansion allowed all (I think) units to assume a semi-skirmish formation. It quickly became apparent that moving all those guys individually was too much of a pain, so we ended up just placing a token beside the unit instead. I'm all for more formations, provided the models stay ranked up.

James243
22-05-2014, 21:02
Are people dismissing the idea of unbound armies coming to WHFB? I made a post a few months ago, bemoaning how I couldn't just run the models I like, and how that prevented me from getting into certain armies. The example I made was that I'd like to have an elite Tomb Kings army, made of lots of Tomb Guard and a smattering of other stuff. I wanted to do that because I love those models and don't like the core ones. But playing an army made of the models I like best isn't allowed in the rules. But given what's happened in 40k with Unbound - isn't it likely that the same will come to WHFB? I know there isn't the same objective contesting etc, but it's a way for them to probably sell more stuff by allowing people to buy what they want, and buy a smattering of allies (which i'm figuring will be in 9th).

theunwantedbeing
22-05-2014, 21:13
Are people dismissing the idea of unbound armies coming to WHFB?

Yes.
All it will do is cause the WAAC lot to turn up with unbound lists that can't be made into normal lists to force people to play them or miss out on a game.

It will of course definitely appear in 9th edition if unbound armies manage to boost sales though.

SpanielBear
22-05-2014, 21:24
Are people dismissing the idea of unbound armies coming to WHFB? I made a post a few months ago, bemoaning how I couldn't just run the models I like, and how that prevented me from getting into certain armies. The example I made was that I'd like to have an elite Tomb Kings army, made of lots of Tomb Guard and a smattering of other stuff. I wanted to do that because I love those models and don't like the core ones. But playing an army made of the models I like best isn't allowed in the rules. But given what's happened in 40k with Unbound - isn't it likely that the same will come to WHFB? I know there isn't the same objective contesting etc, but it's a way for them to probably sell more stuff by allowing people to buy what they want, and buy a smattering of allies (which i'm figuring will be in 9th).

A lot depends on the games you play. Are you seeing a lot of pick up lists against strangers, do you have a friendly club, or are you a hardcore tournament junkie? If your main group are regulars who enjoy friendly games, unbound can work. You agree on fun lists, with solid background and fluff, and you play a casual game with a list you enjoy and the army that's right for you. In this environment, unbound is no problem.

With the other two, however, you are opening yourself up to the risk of running into every WAAC, cut-throat, beatstick combo imaginable. Don't like chimeras? Prepare to see fleets of them. Gunlines? Nothing but canons and organ guns as far as the eye can see. And heaven help us if they let you take multiple magic items. You think one Nurgle prince is bad? Wait till he brings his twins.

I won't dismiss it out of hand- I see the idea behind it, and I get the concept. I don't like the idea that this becomes "legal Warhammer", rather than a friendly agreement. That puts too much in the hands of your opponent, and while that's fine if you know them, if you don't you're in a real Russian roulette situation.

Charistoph
23-05-2014, 02:16
I won't dismiss it out of hand- I see the idea behind it, and I get the concept. I don't like the idea that this becomes "legal Warhammer", rather than a friendly agreement. That puts too much in the hands of your opponent, and while that's fine if you know them, if you don't you're in a real Russian roulette situation.

Every game is a friendly agreement, whether it's an ETC tournament or a drop on your home table with a friend. The Unbound has always been there, provided you and your opponent agree. The game really has been as flexible (or not) as you agree to, for as long as it has existed.

SpanielBear
23-05-2014, 02:33
Every game is a friendly agreement, whether it's an ETC tournament or a drop on your home table with a friend. The Unbound has always been there, provided you and your opponent agree. The game really has been as flexible (or not) as you agree to, for as long as it has existed.

I see what you're saying, and yeah you are right, the ability to be flexible has always been a given. House rules and comp, all these things are just unbound front runners. Where the nature of the game is known before hand, be it beer-and-pretzels or WAAC, that flexibility is brilliant and a real strength of the hobby.

Problem with 'official' unbound is that if you are going for pick up games, its increasingly likely you'll end up faced with a match up you don't want. You still have a choice whether to play or not, no ones putting a gun to your head, but the more broken combos that become possible, the more games you may decline and miss out on.

Hence my point about the gaming environment being so important. If you know the kind of games and gamers you encounter want to play "your" Warhammer, there's no issue. If you are in a situation where you have to take a chance with your opponents, however, unbound increases the anxiety that you are going to lose out on a fun game.

HelloKitty
23-05-2014, 04:42
It may have to decline more games but it has no problem doing so if creatures bring unbound to random games. It agrees though - the creatures that have the problem are those that play against randoms mostly.

RainSong
24-05-2014, 19:44
I can imagine unbound or allies or daemon summoning in fantasy, to boost sales. Kinda what they did with storm of magic, but it will be in the core rules instead of an optional expansion ruleset.

Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Official 40k faction codex style 'army scrolls' would be nice though... Eg. Cult of Slaanesh list using daemons and dark elves, or a lustrian forest goblin army with dinosaurs... That would sell more models as well as being fun and fluffy.

Spiney Norman
25-05-2014, 07:11
Are people dismissing the idea of unbound armies coming to WHFB? I made a post a few months ago, bemoaning how I couldn't just run the models I like, and how that prevented me from getting into certain armies. The example I made was that I'd like to have an elite Tomb Kings army, made of lots of Tomb Guard and a smattering of other stuff. I wanted to do that because I love those models and don't like the core ones. But playing an army made of the models I like best isn't allowed in the rules. But given what's happened in 40k with Unbound - isn't it likely that the same will come to WHFB? I know there isn't the same objective contesting etc, but it's a way for them to probably sell more stuff by allowing people to buy what they want, and buy a smattering of allies (which i'm figuring will be in 9th).

Yes we are ignoring it, for several reasons
1. Unbound is just the new name for apocalypse in 40k, apoc has been around for the last 2-3 editions of 40k and still not made it into fantasy (thank Sigmar). I suspect the main reason for this is that apoc/unbound has been GWs vehicle for driving sales of super heavy vehicles, and currently there is no wfb equivalent for this class.

2. Even in 40k unbound still requires your opponents permission, this means (in my experience) that like apocalypse, it will almost never be played because of the level of min-maxed power gaming it opens up, very few people really wants to play in that environment.

3. Playing fluffy armies in unbound is a really terrible idea because the whole purpose of unbound is to open up the game's most abusive cross-army combos, building an elite tomb king army sounds cool but when you see the chimera/daemon prince spam armies backed up with a white lion dragon banner unit, gutstar and Khorne cannon chariots across the table you will realise how utterly pointless and futile your game is.

There is no reason that you can't just come to an agreement with your opponent to relax the army list percentages for an odd game any way and see how it goes, just don't be surprised if he comes up with something dirty.

Shadoer
25-05-2014, 07:32
We also already had a half hearted attempt of "unbound" armies and Apocalypse like stuff in "Storm of Magic" which didn't go over too well. Odds are that while alliance rules may come back, we aren't getting stuff like unbound any time soon.

draccan
25-05-2014, 10:12
One consequence of 7th for fantasy could be a whole new surge of 40k refugees

Urgat
25-05-2014, 10:21
Well, considering I didn't play Warhammer 20 years ago, and I have no way of knowing how the boxes used to look back then, I think you're asking a bit much there, so you don't have to treat me like an idiot.
Roh, so touchy :p my post made it clear what I was coming to, seriously.


Yes. Because what Warhammer players always do is move their units one model at a time. There's absolutely no way to circumvent this problem. :rolleyes:
Seriously? I like you ULF, but here it feels like you don't read the posts at all :/

plantagenet
25-05-2014, 15:45
Unbound and using allies aren't necessarily the same thing.

I would be surprised more if unbound wasn't in 9th fantasy than if it was. I am also expecting to see the objective counters and cards to make an appearance in 9th as this seems to be one of the main ways of balancing unbound armies vs those who follow normal army restrictions.

Ultimate Life Form
25-05-2014, 15:55
Seriously? I like you ULF, but here it feels like you don't read the posts at all :/

I'll return the compliment right back. Somehow there seems to have been some kind of misunderstanding involved here. I blame the internet.

Fear Ghoul
25-05-2014, 22:30
To address the issues concerning Skirmish trays, I'd rather they just had skirmishers rank up like everyone else. Fantasy works using an abstract scale, so there's really no need to represent skirmishing units with unwieldy movement rules.

The bearded one
26-05-2014, 00:15
To address the issues concerning Skirmish trays, I'd rather they just removed they just had skirmishers rank up like everyone else. Fantasy works using an abstract scale, so there's really no need to represent skirmishing units with unwieldy movement rules.

Templates.

Fear Ghoul
26-05-2014, 00:53
Templates.

As I said before the scale is abstract, so differences in coherency rules can be legitimately sacrificed. In any case the current rules aren't representative of anything real, so all my suggestion does is achieve simplicity by ending the major nuisance caused by their current rules.

Avian
26-05-2014, 08:58
Given that 7th edition 40K doesn't appear to be selling all that well (more than 300 collectors editions left after more than a week), I'm ever so slightly worried that we might not see a new edition of FB next year either. The 40K one was cheap to do, since it was just a few books, but a new edition of FB would probably "need" a new starter set and if the market isn't there GW might just stick with 8th edition.

On the other hand, a lot of the changes to 40K would make me like 9th edition even less than 8th edition, were they ported over here.

*sigh*

theunwantedbeing
26-05-2014, 09:02
Templates.

Two simple solutions to solve any issues
1. Templates need a 4+ to hit skirmishers or
2. Templates halve the number of hits they cause on skirmishers

dooms33ker
26-05-2014, 09:47
Given that 7th edition 40K doesn't appear to be selling all that well (more than 300 collectors editions left after more than a week), I'm ever so slightly worried that we might not see a new edition of FB next year either.

That does tend to happen when your rulebook costs more than your army. I don't think the sell-through rate of the collector's edition is a good yardstick to measure overall sales by.

Avian
26-05-2014, 10:00
Why not? You can estimate what share of the players get the collector's edition and that gives you an estimate of the overall sales.

Minty
26-05-2014, 12:50
I'm ever so slightly worried that we might not see a new edition of FB next year either.

Worried?

8th ed rocks. I'll happily play it forever if 9th never comes.

Which is NOT to say 9th edition must or will be bad. There's simply no reason to assume it will be better than the current highly excellent edition. The small number of flaws in 8th might be fixed and replaced with other flaws, which might be better or worse.

As a general thing, though, if something is awesome, the next thing is probably going to be at least a bit worse, just by law of averages.

9th will probably come next year, and that's okay, but if it doesn't, that's okay, too.

CountUlrich
26-05-2014, 14:28
Given that 7th edition 40K doesn't appear to be selling all that well (more than 300 collectors editions left after more than a week), I'm ever so slightly worried that we might not see a new edition of FB next year either. The 40K one was cheap to do, since it was just a few books, but a new edition of FB would probably "need" a new starter set and if the market isn't there GW might just stick with 8th edition.

On the other hand, a lot of the changes to 40K would make me like 9th edition even less than 8th edition, were they ported over here.

*sigh*

Like others, I think your premise is bad as far as equating special edition sales to overall sales. Secondly, I think 8th ed is by far the best edition yet and would be just fine if no new edition came for 5 years.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 14:47
Why not? You can estimate what share of the players get the collector's edition and that gives you an estimate of the overall sales.

Its very miss guided to asume a 300$+ book bundle (lovely as it is) will sell as well as the game or core books.

As it has been repeated plenty of times, 40k requires quite a lot less to buy a playable army. This price tag, probably goes against the purchase intent of the player base.

A lot of asumptions can be made, but none we can state certainly to be true. At the very least, not now

From my servoskull

Avian
26-05-2014, 17:08
Its very miss guided to asume a 300$+ book bundle (lovely as it is) will sell as well as the game or core books.
Not only is it misguided, it's also not what I said. I said that if you can estimate the share of people who bought the collectors edition (as opposed to the normal edition), you can get an idea of how many bought the rulebook. You could go by orders of magnitude. So the collectors edition sold 1600 copies, right? Presumably more than 1/100th of the buyers (1%) bought that, so less than 160,000 people bought the rulebook. But less than 1/1th of the people (100%) bought it, so more than 1600 people. How about 1/10th of the buyers getting the collectors edition? That seems more reasonable and would make for 16,000 buyers. It might be a bit more uncommon than that, but presumably not a lot. If one made a poll in the 40K General forum, we'd get an even better impression.

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 17:15
Not only is it misguided, it's also not what I said. I said that if you can estimate the share of people who bought the collectors edition (as opposed to the normal edition), you can get an idea of how many bought the rulebook. You could go by orders of magnitude. So the collectors edition sold 1600 copies, right? Presumably more than 1/100th of the buyers (1%) bought that, so less than 160,000 people bought the rulebook. But less than 1/1th of the people (100%) bought it, so more than 1600 people. How about 1/10th of the buyers getting the collectors edition? That seems more reasonable and would make for 16,000 buyers. It might be a bit more uncommon than that, but presumably not a lot. If one made a poll in the 40K General forum, we'd get an even better impression.

Actually you cant Avian, truth be told we have no real numbers whatsoever to asume anything related GW.

From my servoskull

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 17:17
Actually you cant Avian, truth be told we have no real numbers whatsoever to asume anything related GW.

He's speaking hypothetically.

Also, don't correct a math teacher when he's talking about numbers... :shifty: :p

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 17:22
Im a marketing mayor, we have nothing close to make even an educated guess on their sales figures. Im not discusing math really

From my servoskull

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 17:22
Please delete

Ramius4
26-05-2014, 17:25
we have nothing close to make even an educated guess on their sales figures

I know that. I think you need to look up the word hypothetically...

And the math teacher thing was a joke. ;)


Im a marketing mayor

Is that anything like Mayor McCheese? :p Sorry, I couldn't resist :cool:

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 17:42
that anything like Mayor McCheese? :p Sorry, I couldn't resist :cool:

People are looking wierd at me as I try not to burst in laugther :D

From my servoskull

Urgat
26-05-2014, 17:43
Please delete
You can do it yourself, go edit advanced and delete.

Alltaken
26-05-2014, 17:52
You can do it yourself, go edit advanced and delete.

I cant seem to in Tapatalk, know how?

From my servoskull

olderplayer
26-05-2014, 18:11
Deleted to post in correct thread.