PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on 9th Ed



N00B
13-11-2014, 00:54
Seeing as how we seem to be an age of combining army books I wondered what was likely to happen to this in 9th. I think it would be fair to say that GW has an implicit commitment to keeping as many models usable as possible between editions so I dont think that we will see many units disappearing from the lists. This makes me think that most, if not all of the current army books will remain in some form or another.

This lead me to thinking - could we see multiple combinations of books allowed?

Warriors of Chaos and Ogres or Warriors of Chaos and Demons (take your pick!)

Ogres and Empire (or WoC for Ogres)

Beastmen and Demons or Beastmen and Woodelves (one emphasising the chaos origins, one the wild aspect of beastmen)

Woodelves and Bretonnian (emphasising their old Alliance) and so on...


I think this would be reasonably ok to balance and I think it would sell a lot of models. Each person with an army now has an incentive to but models from at least one more to supplement their army (and each supplemental force allows an additional ally to be collected as well.

moonlapse
13-11-2014, 01:09
This is what I fear most for 9th (other than complete unbound). Armies mashed together destroys the balance and subtle strengths and weaknesses of each army. If someone really wants to combine units from 2 armies they can do it now - just get opponents permission. It doesn't need to be officially incorporated into the rules.

Greyshadow
13-11-2014, 01:17
I think this consolidation should happen. Warhammer is a monster of a game right now, pairing things back could be good for the game if done properly - which I think it probably will be. Also, there has always been some pre edition jitters towards its release.

Philhelm
13-11-2014, 01:32
I keep hearing rumors of round bases. I could handle most other changes, but round bases would break my grip on sanity.

HelloKitty
13-11-2014, 02:14
i have no problem with this. Making it a part of the core game is just a matter of time. Allies already exist with grand army rules. Their end times books are a peek into 9th edition - and in 9th edition they are moving towards what they did with 40k with allowing you to mix armies as part of the core rules.

kylek2235
13-11-2014, 02:26
I think this consolidation should happen. Warhammer is a monster of a game right now, pairing things back could be good for the game if done properly - which I think it probably will be. Also, there has always been some pre edition jitters towards its release.

I'm not sure how combining armies would make it less of a monster of a game. Unless you start contracting units, the unit totals are the same if its one book or four. The only difference is that 75% of the units become worthless (much like 4th edition) because their uses are repetitive.

I suspect there'll be a little resistance to contracting the majority of the model range if this is indeed what happens...

HelloKitty
13-11-2014, 02:31
Once allies come out into the core and out of the optional grand army rules that few people pay attention to, I suspect there will be rage for six months to a year, talk of how the game is less tactical etc etc.

It would work much like 40k - meaning it will depend on how you play and what environment you play in. If you play in a competitive environment then yeah i can see how you will lose 3/4 or more of the units - but in reality I think that is already the case in competitive gaming.

Time will tell. Likely less than a year we will know for sure.

kylek2235
13-11-2014, 02:44
I play tournament games, friendly games, scenario games, and even narrative campaigns, but if a unit is the exact same as another unit except it cost two more points a model, I'm not going to use it unless a scenario absolutely requires me too. In that case, I'm just going to proxy it and not buy it. I love building and painting theme armies, but there has to be at least a tiny bit of utility to it.

That sounds an awful lot like its a waste to produce at that point.

SteveW
13-11-2014, 04:17
Why would anyone want this? Armies having their own identity is what makes the game interesting.

CaledorAscendent
13-11-2014, 04:41
I play High Elves. I love the High Elf models, and I also think some of the Wood Elf models are really cool. I would very much enjoy getting a Treeman and some Eternal Guard, because they look very nice. However, as it is currently set up, if I wanted to get those models and then play with them, I would have to buy a new army book, and then buy a ton of other models to get a legal army, when all I ever wanted was 20 Eternal Guard and 1 Treeman. If the WE and HE armies were merged, I would be able to get exactly what I wanted, without having to spend tons of money on stuff I'm frankly not interested in. That's one reason why I think this merging is really good, so long as it is done in a way that makes sense in the fluff, and doesn't break an army. The identity of the armies would still be there if you tried just a tad. If WE and HE merge, the only person forcing you to buy HE models and mess up your army's identity is you, so you cannot blame GW there.

ShruikhanTK
13-11-2014, 04:51
Oh god no, under end time special rules yes ally it up.....but dwarfs in an imperial gun line? It just doesn't feel the same as oh look those stubborn dwarf allies over there, those bearded know it alls are holding the hill better than us....!@# them! we can do it better. No every one is friends now. Different armies deployed on the field are cool....mixed up is kinda....janky? Chaos/Undead are kind of the exception because they can all be dominated by a higher power and merged into one force.

I play Tomb Kings I feel a little odd having the identity mashed in with VC. Under Nagash and Arkhan that stuff flies, but for all armies to start doing it? No way man.

SteveW
13-11-2014, 04:53
That isn't the argument against merging armies. The argument is that(given your example) high elves have one weakness, they are all tough 3. Wood elves have high toughness models but no warmachines and no armor. If you can combine them you take away both of their weaknesses and break the game balance wise.

kylek2235
13-11-2014, 05:03
I play High Elves. I love the High Elf models, and I also think some of the Wood Elf models are really cool. I would very much enjoy getting a Treeman and some Eternal Guard, because they look very nice. However, as it is currently set up, if I wanted to get those models and then play with them, I would have to buy a new army book, and then buy a ton of other models to get a legal army, when all I ever wanted was 20 Eternal Guard and 1 Treeman. If the WE and HE armies were merged, I would be able to get exactly what I wanted, without having to spend tons of money on stuff I'm frankly not interested in. That's one reason why I think this merging is really good, so long as it is done in a way that makes sense in the fluff, and doesn't break an army. The identity of the armies would still be there if you tried just a tad. If WE and HE merge, the only person forcing you to buy HE models and mess up your army's identity is you, so you cannot blame GW there.

I can understand the Price Per Army argument. That's a very valid argument.

On the other end, I'd say that all of your problems could be solved with an alliance ruleset and wouldn't require the full book merging. If it made sense in the fluff that they were one army, then you lose the army identity that ever made you want them to begin with. As I said before, large books lose internal balance quickly as well. Combined books will only lead to unit contraction. There was a reason we went to army books in the first place, although GW's memories appear to be short in that regard these days.

Even though I find a return of the alliance rule set to be distasteful (it was not a rousing success in 4th ed), I find it preferable to combined books.

Spiney Norman
13-11-2014, 07:54
That isn't the argument against merging armies. The argument is that(given your example) high elves have one weakness, they are all tough 3. Wood elves have high toughness models but no warmachines and no armor. If you can combine them you take away both of their weaknesses and break the game balance wise.

And all the models that are above T3 in the wood elf army are overpriced and subpar, allowing high elves to take dryad allies is not going to break the game by any means. Just remind me of the toughness of a frost phoenix again? As if a competitive player is going to take a Treeman when the frosty is in their main list...

There are plenty of good examples of game breaking alliances. Wood elves with high elf bolt throwers, Bretonnian trebuchet or imperial cannons is a prime example, high elves with allied dryads doesn't even register on the OP scale.

Unfortunately adding allies to warhammer is just going to have the unfortunate effect that every army in the game will show up with a cannon, between dwarfs, empire, ogres and daemons I suspect most armies in the game will be able to ally with at least one of them. But on the other hand, with all these horrific combined profile monsters that are flying around in the end times cannons for all might be the only viable way forward. When I look at the things characters like Nagash and KF Ascendent can do in the game it makes me appreciate how well balanced fantasy has been in 8th edition, and how it is now teetering on the brink of a precipice.

Wesser
13-11-2014, 09:04
Being in the game since 3rd

Seen a lot of rules changes - Some I was happy with and some I weren't, but in essence it was alright because armies kept their identity, everything always felt at least reasonably balanced. Particularly weird stuff that tried to draft in allies such as Triumph & Treachery and Storm of Magic are specialized cases far from the norm, and the actual rules for allies were mired deep in the Optional Rules sections.

Back in 4th allies were directly integrated in the army selection, but in the best rules decision ever, allies were removed because they were only ever used for trolling. "Ah, you brought your Vampire Counts? My Dwarf army and their rather misplaced single Bretonnian Lord with Blade of Couronne is here to meet you....".




Allies smashed 40k. It's almost impossible to keep track of all relevant codex (think my record is seeing an army using 5 different books...). What's legal, tournament standard, requires opponent's consent and so on is impossible to keep track of and even tactics have devolved because there's no framework for choosing armies anymore.

40k managed to suck it up because it was already more of a list-building game than a tactics game. Anything like Unbound or the 40k ally system will kill WFB stone dead. All other changes is something we learn to cope with, but even End Times is straining game balance and character.

Despite what some people say "more choice" just tends to be a bad thing

Banville
13-11-2014, 09:48
^ This.

Allies have made 40k a mess and, anectdotally at least, people are walking away from it because of the horrible situation that you can turn up for a game and someone just plonks down a mish mash of units that have no real drawbacks. It's not nice turning down a game on the grounds that you don't want to play against two knights, Tau and Eldar all at once. 40k has dies death in my area because of the allies matrix.

If GW did any market research they might reconsider the Unbound thing altogether.

In saying that, I think the End Times "allies" are handled quite well and with a fair degree of sensitivity. If some sort of allies matrix were to be introduced then I'd hope there was a balance to it and proper drawbacks and limitations.

Seriously though, I can't see it happening in Fantasy like in 40k. Synergy is much more important to Fantasy and is much more easily thrown out of whack. Could you imagine Orcs with access to Beasts magic through an allied wizard. Dear God, it'd make the game unplayable.

Kahadras
13-11-2014, 09:56
I, for one, would be very suprised if GW didn't introduce 'unbound' into 9th ed. It just seems to be the way GW is going at the moment. They might organise a lose frame work i.e forces of order vs forces of disorder but at the end of the day currently GW appears to see itself as in the business of selling models and unbound potentialy allows them to sell more. I'd say that a bit more focus on allies wouldn't be a bad thing but keep it to reasonable blocks. Divide each army into either order or disorder. Any force of order can ally with another force of order. Any force of disorder can ally with another force of disorder. Then have a 'close allies' system so each army has one or two other armies that they ally up well with.

So Empire, for instance, can ally with any force of order (Dwarves, Bretonnia, High Elves, Wood Elves, Lizardmen) and are close allies with Dwarves and Bretonnia. Warriors of Choas, on the other hand, can ally with any force of disorder (Beastmen, Undead, Skaven, Dark Elves, DoC, Ogres, O&G) and are close allies with DoC and Beastmen.

Shakkara
13-11-2014, 10:39
Frost phoenix + cold one knights combined charge... *shudders*

Spiney Norman
13-11-2014, 10:41
I, for one, would be very suprised if GW didn't introduce 'unbound' into 9th ed. It just seems to be the way GW is going at the moment. They might organise a lose frame work i.e forces of order vs forces of disorder but at the end of the day currently GW appears to see itself as in the business of selling models and unbound potentialy allows them to sell more. I'd say that a bit more focus on allies wouldn't be a bad thing but keep it to reasonable blocks. Divide each army into either order or disorder. Any force of order can ally with another force of order. Any force of disorder can ally with another force of disorder. Then have a 'close allies' system so each army has one or two other armies that they ally up well with.

So Empire, for instance, can ally with any force of order (Dwarves, Bretonnia, High Elves, Wood Elves, Lizardmen) and are close allies with Dwarves and Bretonnia. Warriors of Choas, on the other hand, can ally with any force of disorder (Beastmen, Undead, Skaven, Dark Elves, DoC, Ogres, O&G) and are close allies with DoC and Beastmen.

So just to be certain... "Cannons for all"
You're right that it does seem likely, is it too much to hope for that they might bring out Beastmen and Bretonnians before 9th edition, at least then 8th would be relatively well balanced and self-contained for those that didn't want to be dragged into the mad abusive craziness of allies.

logan054
13-11-2014, 11:35
I play Tomb Kings I feel a little odd having the identity mashed in with VC. Under Nagash and Arkhan that stuff flies, but for all armies to start doing it? No way man.

I wouldn't be surprised with 9th ed if we saw a Undead book and a chaos book with expansion books released to make TK's and WoC, DoC, Beastmen viable armies.

Malagor
13-11-2014, 11:36
I'm lucky that people ignored the unbound thing where I play.
I think the fantasy players will be able to handle unbound should it arrive either by ignoring it or make fluffy fun lists.

HelloKitty
13-11-2014, 13:18
Our fantasy campaigns have been using full allies for many years now and it hasn't broken the game for us at least. Back in the 5th edition days - everyone could take 25% allies officially. That stopped with 6th edition.

That being said - I have no problem with them becoming "official" again.

Alltaken
13-11-2014, 13:58
I see a lot of claims with pretty much no knowledge on 9th ed rules and army book rules.

Therefore I feel a lot is crying out before its time. 8th ed and its books have become our hallmark of quality, in my opinión and from what I percieve from opinions here.

I fear the following:
- drop if miniature ranges.
- prevalecent "hero Hammer" (in a smaller range than 5th, but still hero Hammer).
- having excess minis for a smaller sized game.

I think we will see combined profiles for all mounts in the future.
Maybe the glotkin not being large target is a future to be rule, and not a slip.

Thats as far as I go, I have the benefit of a close group where I can control a little bit of how brutal or not are our games.

SteveW
13-11-2014, 14:37
And all the models that are above T3 in the wood elf army are overpriced and subpar, allowing high elves to take dryad allies is not going to break the game by any means. Just remind me of the toughness of a frost phoenix again? As if a competitive player is going to take a Treeman when the frosty is in their main list...

There are plenty of good examples of game breaking alliances. Wood elves with high elf bolt throwers, Bretonnian trebuchet or imperial cannons is a prime example, high elves with allied dryads doesn't even register on the OP scale.
.


I like how you ignored what I wrote, copied one of my points, and then had a little "ah ha!" moment.

Just Tony
13-11-2014, 15:05
One of the things that GW discussed when they rolled out 6th Ed. was that they switched to army specific magic items because it was difficult to track any broken combos with the universal item pool. If they roll out unbound or even an ally system, the chance of broken combos increases exponentially with little chance of catching it before release. It seems to me almost like there was someone who was 12 back in the day of the more jacked up editions who is now in command over there and is trying to bring what he grew up on back. I can't say that this is a good thing.

However, who knows? Maybe 9th will come out and somehow be better than we're fearing.

SuperHappyTime
13-11-2014, 18:16
Two points:

One of the things that GW discussed when they rolled out 6th Ed. was that they switched to army specific magic items because it was difficult to track any broken combos with the universal item pool. If they roll out unbound or even an ally system, the chance of broken combos increases exponentially with little chance of catching it before release. It seems to me almost like there was someone who was 12 back in the day of the more jacked up editions who is now in command over there and is trying to bring what he grew up on back. I can't say that this is a good thing.

However, who knows? Maybe 9th will come out and somehow be better than we're fearing.

First I think as long as our named characters can't hold additional magic items, we should be fine. Then it comes down to questioning how broken Mr. X or Ms. Y is.

Second those that are afraid that combining armies won't be as flavorful shouldn't be afraid about combining armybooks. Right now there isn't anything stopping you from building a peasant themed Bret army, a skink only Lizard army, mono god Daemon army, tree only wood elf army, etc. So far, two of the armies touched by combining were some of the weakest in-game and lore-wise (both split off from their previous armies, undead or chaos).

Just Tony
13-11-2014, 18:21
Two points:


First I think as long as our named characters can't hold additional magic items, we should be fine. Then it comes down to questioning how broken Mr. X or Ms. Y is.

Second those that are afraid that combining armies won't be as flavorful shouldn't be afraid about combining armybooks. Right now there isn't anything stopping you from building a peasant themed Bret army, a skink only Lizard army, mono god Daemon army, tree only wood elf army, etc. So far, two of the armies touched by combining were some of the weakest in-game and lore-wise (both split off from their previous armies, undead or chaos).

Did you never play against the combined Chaos books in 6th Ed.? Not only were they not separate, they were the most imbalanced force on the board. I'm dreading a return to that, or worse yet, a return to the "hallowed" days of 5th Ed.

SteveW
13-11-2014, 18:21
Edit: Read the post wrong.

So far the books have combined two armies that needed a boost and I like how that went. Then they returned chaos to the broken form it was back in 5th without reinstating the restrictions that army had. I've played against a three DP list backed by skullcannons a few times now and it just isn't any fun. Not that its unbeatable, just that it doesn't feel like warhammer at all.

Alltaken
13-11-2014, 18:48
Well people are talking about 6th and I remember 6/7 to be all about cav charge, and chaos had/has good cav.

The only thing making chaos scarrier this days is skull cannon I think, maybe slanesh greater daemon.
And by scarrier I mean woc + some goodies.

logan054
13-11-2014, 22:37
Did you never play against the combined Chaos books in 6th Ed.? Not only were they not separate, they were the most imbalanced force on the board. I'm dreading a return to that, or worse yet, a return to the "hallowed" days of 5th Ed.

Yeah, So imbalanced that they didn't dominated tournaments.

Just Tony
14-11-2014, 05:22
We were playing totally different tournaments then

Acephale
14-11-2014, 09:31
I think unbound is coming for sure, the signs are all there. Not that I mind too much personally since I play in a very casual and fluffy environment, but of course it sucks for tournament players and other competitive people who want balanced rulesets.

On the other hand, GW have not cared about those players for a long time now. Why would they start catering to them now? It's obvious that their main goal is to sell models, and since WHFB has been in a pretty inaccessible place for a while now (huge model counts needed, many separate books, etc) it only makes sense to try and bring in new players with a more open framework where you can use all your expensive, over-the-top models and don't have to collect hundreds of rank n file stuff first - 50% L&H is another step in this direction of course.

It's basically a way of creating more impulse buys; "hey look, that new 100€ model looks awesome, and now that I can just slap it on the table together with my other stuff without having to start a whole new army first, why not just buy it right now?"

This is probably the future of Warhammer, like it or not. It could have some positive effects: a boost for Fantasy sales, meaning more active support for the system and more cool models to chose from.

I guess you'll only have problems with it if you a) either expect GW to produce balanced games suitable for tournaments and competitive play, and/or b) play in an environment where you just HAVE to follow GW's rules to the letter and can't stand house rules or playing with older rules. If you're like me and my gaming group however, you'll just play what you like, with the models you like, as always.

Banville
14-11-2014, 10:06
That's not the issue, though. Nobody has a real problem with the super-duper-lords. With the exception of Nagash, maybe. It's the spectre of the ridiculous Unbound system simply being slapped on the game wholesale that has the majority of people exercised.

Ville
14-11-2014, 10:06
It could have some positive effects: a boost for Fantasy sales, meaning more active support for the system and more cool models to chose from.


I predict the outcome would be negative. Tournament scene is an important part of the hobby and if the game completely neglects the competitive audience, they will find a better (balanced) system to compete in. I'm thinking of a certain youtuber here - I miss you, Malorian. Wargaming is also a social thing, you need opponents to keep it interesting. This means that players switching system will lead to more players doing the same thing. If everyone or the most active players in my area decided to switch to WarmaHordes, I would be seriously tempted to do the same.

N00B
14-11-2014, 10:35
That's not the issue, though. Nobody has a real problem with the super-duper-lords. With the exception of Nagash, maybe. It's the spectre of the ridiculous Unbound system simply being slapped on the game wholesale that has the majority of people exercised.

I do have a bit of a problem with the super-lords. They are powerful and in a sense of winning pretty balanced (except Nagash obviously) but they do make the game less fun - when win or lose so often comes down to a single roll of the dice at best (and at worst whether you chose to bring an army that can take cannons) you lose a lot of the tactical element. Just to be clear I know that a lot of games come down to a few dice rolls but that is because the players playing them ore evenly matched).

The other problem is not a super lords problem but just that coupled with the 50% lords allowance. In grand armies they would be fine.


I think combined races could work if it was limited and with maybe some adjustment. Units with the same name/type count against the number of rare/special choices allowed in each section - so only 3 artillery pieces in special/2 in rare if you are playing empire + dwarfs. Even rules for the combined army could work as it does in Chaos Legions where there are specific lists of what can be taken from each army book.

Considering the original suggestion of a wild themed faction of beastmen and woodelves - the beastmen wouldnt get marks (as that would be only a chaos legions rule) + if they were to be wild focussed not chaos focussed they might lose some of the chaos feeling monsters or magic lores.

The result would obviously be a little better as an army - predominantly shooty wood elf lists get new options for combat blocks, beastmen get access to some shooting units but no one gets war machines, no one gets heavy cavalry (unless you count war hawk riders) and there is an obvious theme/feeling running through the army.

I think building combined factions is good but has to be done very carefully. I am using the Chaos legions rules but find myself building themed or fluffy lists because the simple ramming together of lists there was too powerful. For undead I think it has worked well - some tradeoffs but also some benefits to bring them in line with other armies.

logan054
14-11-2014, 10:40
We were playing totally different tournaments then

Clearly, the only real issues I remember with the old HoC list was the silly amount of powerdice Tzeentch could have and the silly amount of Dispel dice Khorne could have. Other than most units use to be overpriced.

SanDiegoSurrealist
14-11-2014, 11:15
I 100% agree The Sky Is Most Certainly Falling, and this time it is for sure.
I know we all said it when 8th edition dropped and it all worked out that time.
I know we all said it when SoM dropped and it all worked out that time too.
Come to think of it when 7th came out I am pretty sure the sky fell that time as well.
Wow is there any sky left to fall?
:D

I am sure there will be things about 9th we all hate but there will most likely be things we will all absolutely love; I am glass is half full kind of guy,

Acephale
14-11-2014, 12:53
I predict the outcome would be negative. Tournament scene is an important part of the hobby and if the game completely neglects the competitive audience, they will find a better (balanced) system to compete in. I'm thinking of a certain youtuber here - I miss you, Malorian. Wargaming is also a social thing, you need opponents to keep it interesting. This means that players switching system will lead to more players doing the same thing. If everyone or the most active players in my area decided to switch to WarmaHordes, I would be seriously tempted to do the same.

I'm not sure the tournament scene is that important when it comes to hard sales though, otherwise GW would be all over it. Their obvious and explicit neglect of the competetive audience speaks for itself; it's a small (but very vocal) part of their customer base, and they're not interested in catering to specifically to it. My guess would be that this is partly because the competetive people generally are rather critical of the game and never really happy with anything GW puts out, and partly because most of them already have huge collections and don't buy many NIB models directly from GW anyway.

And this of course means that a huge chunk of that audience now switch systems, going for WMH for example (which I personally think is the right thing to do; WHFB is not designed for competetive play at all and it never will be, so trying to play it that way will always be a struggle).

But on the other hand GW's current move with Fantasy might spark the interest of another audience, who up until now have stayed away because of the relative inaccessability of the game. If you can combine armies and play games with fewer models, that will surely make the game more easy to pick up for a lot of people.

Muad'Dib
14-11-2014, 13:23
One of the things that GW discussed when they rolled out 6th Ed. was that they switched to army specific magic items because it was difficult to track any broken combos with the universal item pool.
Where did they write this?

Scammel
14-11-2014, 13:26
I'm really not convinced we'll be seeing an in-built ally system - if it was imminent, I'd be unsure as to why they released the rules in Triumph and Treachery and The End Times. I consider it more likely that the latter of those two will be strongly encouraged as a core part of 9th as opposed to there existing 3 separate ally systems in one edition.

Folomo
14-11-2014, 13:34
If the Sky falls or not depends on what sort of player you are:

If you are a fluff player with a solid and likeminded game groups, then unbound is pretty good. You will be able to use all the fluffy armies you want without having to ask your friends.

For casual gamers in pick-up games, then unbound is the worst. You are either forced into using the cherry picked OP units of the combined armies or prepare for a boring and one-sided game that at least one player (and probably both) will not enjoy.

If you are a tournament game, then things will be somewhat balanced by the forced use of comp (which right now is common but not used everywhere). This also means there will be no chance to play the same game from place to place unless they play the same type of comp you are used to.

You can see these conclusions after reading the 40+ page discussion in the 40k Forum titled "Has the freedom in the game gone too far".


Also, another aspect that didn't exist in 6th, 7th or SoM was a solid competition. 10-5 year ago WH was the only wargame with a wide community. Right now, there are at few wargames with a community as big as WH and far more with a decent sized community, which are also cheaper and with solid balance.
So while before your options where to be left out in the cold or play a game you weren't interested any more, now there is the option to jump ships.

SuperHappyTime
14-11-2014, 13:49
I 100% agree The Sky Is Most Certainly Falling, and this time it is for sure.
I know we all said it when 8th edition dropped and it all worked out that time.
I know we all said it when SoM dropped and it all worked out that time too.
Come to think of it when 7th came out I am pretty sure the sky fell that time as well.
Wow is there any sky left to fall?
:D

I am sure there will be things about 9th we all hate but there will most likely be things we will all absolutely love; I am glass is half full kind of guy,

A glass half full of s*** is still half full of air amiright?


I'm not sure the tournament scene is that important when it comes to hard sales though, otherwise GW would be all over it. Their obvious and explicit neglect of the competetive audience speaks for itself; it's a small (but very vocal) part of their customer base, and they're not interested in catering to specifically to it. My guess would be that this is partly because the competetive people generally are rather critical of the game and never really happy with anything GW puts out, and partly because most of them already have huge collections and don't buy many NIB models directly from GW anyway.

And this of course means that a huge chunk of that audience now switch systems, going for WMH for example (which I personally think is the right thing to do; WHFB is not designed for competetive play at all and it never will be, so trying to play it that way will always be a struggle).

But on the other hand GW's current move with Fantasy might spark the interest of another audience, who up until now have stayed away because of the relative inaccessability of the game. If you can combine armies and play games with fewer models, that will surely make the game more easy to pick up for a lot of people.

The game is still inaccessible for the reasons it always has. Prices and/or the amount of time and work involved in putting an army together limit the desire to continue the hobby after the initial purchase.

It is us filthy casuals who like the idea of commanding an army of dudes and that drives sales. The End Times plays to us filthy casuals, it's not meant for tournaments.

The sad part is GW should care about tournaments. They build a sense of community faster and better than individual game stores and reinforce the internet community. It drives sales better than White Dwarf ever will.

Scammel
14-11-2014, 14:41
A glass half full of s*** is still half full of air amiright?

I know Warseer isn't bastion of positivity, but this is the kind of comment that's actively damaging to the community. Literally all we think we know about 9th is that there will be combined rider/monster profiles (widely regarded as a solid move) and a select few just can't wait to make remarks like yours.

Spiney Norman
14-11-2014, 15:00
I know Warseer isn't bastion of positivity, but this is the kind of comment that's actively damaging to the community. Literally all we think we know about 9th is that there will be combined rider/monster profiles (widely regarded as a solid move) and a select few just can't wait to make remarks like yours.

It's just as fair to criticise someone for being overly positive as it is to criticise them for being overly negative, and to be fair GW has done a terrible, terrible job with the last two editions of 40k. Given that it is the same people that write rules for wfb as do it for 40k I think there are reasonable grounds for being extremely nervous about a new edition of wfb.

Scammel
14-11-2014, 15:16
There's 'I am concerned about how many 40k design features will leak into Fantasy' and then there's 'Fantasy is going to be ****'. The quality of most Fantasy releases has been really high (The End Times seem have been very well-received all-round and the consensus seems to be that this could well be THE best edition yet) and even 40k is on a bit of a roll - the codexes have undergone some necessary pruning since the start of 7th, with no balance complaints that I can think of and even Tyranids are getting some very conspicuous love.

HelloKitty
14-11-2014, 15:16
Also, another aspect that didn't exist in 6th, 7th or SoM was a solid competition. 10-5 year ago WH was the only wargame with a wide community. Right now, there are at few wargames with a community as big as WH and far more with a decent sized community, which are also cheaper and with solid balance.
So while before your options where to be left out in the cold or play a game you weren't interested any more, now there is the option to jump ships.

There are certainly other games now that one could play but warhammer fantasy has little direct comparisons in the market today. Mantic's Kings of War is about as close as one comes to a fantasy wargame at the scale of warhammer, and it has a long way to go to compete with warhammer through anything other than cost of models. All of the other games that are cheaper are also skirmish /warband size, and the excellent balance is debatable since pretty much every game that is being played today from warmachines to xwing also has competitive balancing issues where you only see the same handful of builds in competitions.

If cost is the one true driver for a person then absolutely a game set on the scale of warhammer will more than likely be cost prohibitive and warband sized games will be more appealing.

Spiney Norman
14-11-2014, 15:31
There's 'I am concerned about how many 40k design features will leak into Fantasy' and then there's 'Fantasy is going to be ****'. The quality of most Fantasy releases has been really high (The End Times seem have been very well-received all-round and the consensus seems to be that this could well be THE best edition yet) and even 40k is on a bit of a roll - the codexes have undergone some necessary pruning since the start of 7th, with no balance complaints that I can think of and even Tyranids are getting some very conspicuous love.

I agree that wfb 8th is absolutely the best wfb edition since I began playing the game, the balance is remarkably consistent. I would love the, to 'finish' 8th edition by releasing the last few army books before transitioning to a new edition, I think if they did that 8th would have serious milage as a playable retro-edition to the point where I would be confident of getting games of 8th even if 9th did turn out to be a 40k-scale disaster.

I'm going to have to disagree about 40k though, the core rules in 7th edition have made balancing the codexes impossible since whatever fun tricks you give to any individual army can be ruthlessly exploited by other armies for whom that ability is too powerful. The classic example of this is Eldar using the dark Eldar ability to Deepstrike without scatter. That's a great fun ability for DE because they don't have any units that realistically exploit it too much, but give that ability to fire dragons or wraith guard with d-scythes and you've created an abomination. The sad fact is 40k players are complaining about how bland the DE codex is and you can still pull obscenely broken combinations out of it because of the allies and unbound rules. Heaven knows what you could do with an exciting codex...

Acephale
14-11-2014, 15:45
The game is still inaccessible for the reasons it always has. Prices and/or the amount of time and work involved in putting an army together limit the desire to continue the hobby after the initial purchase.

Sure, but there's still far less time and work involved if you can make an army with a couple of lords/heroes and a bunch of units from different armies. Then you no longer have to decide on one army right off the bat, buy and assemble and paint multiple boxes of rather boring core units, be restricted to the playstyle of said army during your first games and then perhaps discover that it isn't to your liking.

As it stands, all you can do in that situation is to start over again with another army, which is absurdly expensive and time consuming and thus deterring for most people. It also carries the prospect of ending up in the same situation again. With rules for unbound and an open ally system however, you can just keep your stuff and add other models you like from other armies. This makes for more impulse buys of huge, expensive lords and heores kits that are viable with multiple army combos, and also of other kits. I'm much more likely to throw money at something I think looks cool if I know that I can actually use it in my existing army than if I'm required to start a whole new army just to be able to field the models in question.

This doesn't mean that I'm not seeing the potential problems with unbound, I'm just playing the devil's advocate for second here and trying to understand the way GW might see things. :P


It is us filthy casuals who like the idea of commanding an army of dudes and that drives sales. The End Times plays to us filthy casuals, it's not meant for tournaments.

The sad part is GW should care about tournaments. They build a sense of community faster and better than individual game stores and reinforce the internet community. It drives sales better than White Dwarf ever will.

Oh, I agree 100%. But GW has a blind spot when it comes to the internet and the word "community" isn't in their vocabulary. Still, it's their company and this is the path they've chosen. They're not about tournaments and community involvement, they're about selling expensive models and limited edition collector's stuff to people who are willing to pay premium. And obviously those people exist, judging from how fast the ET books and cards and whatnot sold out.

Scammel
14-11-2014, 16:01
I'm going to have to disagree about 40k though, the core rules in 7th edition have made balancing the codexes impossible since whatever fun tricks you give to any individual army can be ruthlessly exploited by other armies for whom that ability is too powerful. The classic example of this is Eldar using the dark Eldar ability to Deepstrike without scatter. That's a great fun ability for DE because they don't have any units that realistically exploit it too much, but give that ability to fire dragons or wraith guard with d-scythes and you've created an abomination. The sad fact is 40k players are complaining about how bland the DE codex is and you can still pull obscenely broken combinations out of it because of the allies and unbound rules. Heaven knows what you could do with an exciting codex...

I agree, but I should my myself clearer - the standalone codexes since the start of the edition suggest that the design team exhibited quite a bit of sound restraint. A slight feeling of... 'safeness' is fine for me if it helps to prune back some of worst design facets or stops new ones from spawning.

Spiney Norman
14-11-2014, 16:09
I agree, but I should my myself clearer - the standalone codexes since the start of the edition suggest that the design team exhibited quite a bit of sound restraint. A slight feeling of... 'safeness' is fine for me if it helps to prune back some of worst design facets or stops new ones from spawning.

That is why the problem with 40k 7th edition (and the reason they will never be able to balance it) is that allies and unbound means that there is no such thing as a 'stand alone' codex in 7th, it's all one big army. In any case, we are certainly not that far down the drain with wfb yet, and long may it continue!



This doesn't mean that I'm not seeing the potential problems with unbound, I'm just playing the devil's advocate for second here and trying to understand the way GW might see things. :P

I think that however GW sees the situation it most certainly doesn't include people buying fewer models for 40k

I would imagine their vision is something like every time they release a new codex, with its new all-star, game-breaking unit(s) now the unbound system will mean that all players (or at least many more than previously) will fork out for the new super-unit and the codex containing it's rules rather than previously when it was only usable by players of that army because that is the new standard for remaining competitive in 40k.

Acephale
14-11-2014, 16:31
I think that however GW sees the situation it most certainly doesn't include people buying fewer models for 40k

I would imagine their vision is something like every time they release a new codex, with its new all-star, game-breaking unit(s) now the unbound system will mean that all players (or at least many more than previously) will fork out for the new super-unit and the codex containing it's rules rather than previously when it was only usable by players of that army because that is the new standard for remaining competitive in 40k.

Yes and that's also exactly what I wrote, even if I worded it differently.

Unbound is a way of increasing sales of the core products, i.e. models. It has very little to do with creating a balanced game that works well for competetive play.

SuperHappyTime
14-11-2014, 17:23
I know Warseer isn't bastion of positivity, but this is the kind of comment that's actively damaging to the community. Literally all we think we know about 9th is that there will be combined rider/monster profiles (widely regarded as a solid move) and a select few just can't wait to make remarks like yours.

Should have shortened the quote. That was meant as a joke to the "glass is always half full" positivity, not an opinion of some hypothetical 9th edition we can't predict.

Based on recent history: 6th Ed 40K was okay, but 7th broke a few things that didn't need fixing. 8th has been pretty good, outside of a few oddities BotWD, hordes get some complaints, steadfast, three kitted daemon princes in a game etc. in a casual setting, nothing that can't be fixed by asking your opponent to put away the spray cheese so you can both have fun.

Just Tony
14-11-2014, 17:26
Where did they write this?

It was a Gav Thorpe penned article that ran in White Dwarf when they released 6th Ed. I believe it was also reprinted in Warhammer Annual.

Folomo
14-11-2014, 17:47
the excellent balance is debatable since pretty much every game that is being played today from warmachines to xwing also has competitive balancing issues where you only see the same handful of builds in competitions.
This will happen in any system in competitive play.
If unit A is 0.1% better that unit B, A will always be chosen in the most hardcore tournament list. Such is the mentality of the hardcore tourney players, who strive to get any possible advantage.

But away from those extreme cases is where the difference between a decently balanced game is noticed.
In a game with perfect balance , A and B would be equally good and choosing one over another would be irrelevant. (A=B)
In a game with good balance, a player that chooses unit B will have a good chance to win against an equally skilled player who choose A. (A~B)
In a badly balanced game, a player who choose unit B will have a poor chance to win the game. (A>B)
This aspect does affect the enjoyment of the game for the people who actually enjoy the game for the game itself and not only for the miniatures.

Is good to aim for Perfect balance, even if it may be impossible to reach it. But don't use the impossibility (?) to have perfect balance as an excuse for poor balance.

SanDiegoSurrealist
14-11-2014, 18:24
Warhammer will never have perfect balance, it can't, it does not create an incentive to buy new stuff.
If every unit had a "100% perfect counter" might as well just be rolling dice and use model money for beer.


I think that an allies chart similar to 40k would/will be good.
All Chaos (BM, DoC, WoC) under one banner - battle brothers (that has been a long time coming).
All the Elves should be allied - battle brothers.
Human Races and Dwarves - allies of convenience.
Human Races and Vampires - allies of convenience.
Tomb Kings and Vampires - battle brothers.
Skaven and Lizardmen - come the apocalypse/that is just never going to happen.
etc, etc, etc.

Guess we will see the way the wind is blowing with the next two End Times Books.

HelloKitty
14-11-2014, 18:34
This will happen in any system in competitive play.
If unit A is 0.1% better that unit B, A will always be chosen in the most hardcore tournament list. Such is the mentality of the hardcore tourney players, who strive to get any possible advantage.

But away from those extreme cases is where the difference between a decently balanced game is noticed.
In a game with perfect balance , A and B would be equally good and choosing one over another would be irrelevant. (A=B)
In a game with good balance, a player that chooses unit B will have a good chance to win against an equally skilled player who choose A. (A~B)
In a badly balanced game, a player who choose unit B will have a poor chance to win the game. (A>B)
This aspect does affect the enjoyment of the game for the people who actually enjoy the game for the game itself and not only for the miniatures.

Is good to aim for Perfect balance, even if it may be impossible to reach it. But don't use the impossibility (?) to have perfect balance as an excuse for poor balance.

While I agree in general - that any game played competitively will have this - I find that there are few really horrible units that you can't win with in 40k or fantasy if not playing in an environment where your opponent is bringing one of the overpowerful builds.

mongoosedog300
14-11-2014, 18:49
I agree that wfb 8th is absolutely the best wfb edition since I began playing the game, the balance is remarkably consistent. I would love the, to 'finish' 8th edition by releasing the last few army books before transitioning to a new edition, I think if they did that 8th would have serious milage as a playable retro-edition to the point where I would be confident of getting games of 8th even if 9th did turn out to be a 40k-scale disaster.

I'm going to have to disagree about 40k though, the core rules in 7th edition have made balancing the codexes impossible since whatever fun tricks you give to any individual army can be ruthlessly exploited by other armies for whom that ability is too powerful. The classic example of this is Eldar using the dark Eldar ability to Deepstrike without scatter. That's a great fun ability for DE because they don't have any units that realistically exploit it too much, but give that ability to fire dragons or wraith guard with d-scythes and you've created an abomination. The sad fact is 40k players are complaining about how bland the DE codex is and you can still pull obscenely broken combinations out of it because of the allies and unbound rules. Heaven knows what you could do with an exciting codex...

Like how space marines can get auto-turn 1, little chance of scattering badly melta's? 1-2 unit being able to no-scatter once per game (Which isn't garuanteed due to reserve rolls) in an armour 10 vehicle (alright it can get a 3+ jink) is hardly as game breaking as you're making it out to be. It's an alpha strike style move, where there's basically a trade off one unit for another when the opponent destroys the deep striker the next turn (armour 10 and T3 is not hard to kill).

In fact, 40k has taken off massively in my area in 6th, and the upwards trend has continued in 7th. I personally love the game, and 7th has further increased my love for it. I've only seen a handful of unbound games played, and those were all pre-sanctioned and agreed upon before hand. At least to my gaming circle, your notion of 40k being a "disaster" isn't true at all.

Onto the topic of 9th WHFB, I can see them just saying that all the end times rules stick, but you have to buy those books to get those rules. Why release a product, and then invalidate a portion of it when you can make a large amount of money by saying that it's valid in the core game, but you need to those individual books to use it? I can see them doing unbound, but it having the exact same effect as it did on 40k, which is to say none at all. Allies are a bit tricky, because allies in 40k still need 1 HQ and 1 troops choice, and limit what you can take to 1 of the other 3 slots, which is harder to do in fantasy. Maybe 25% allies, of which you can have 1 rare, 1 special, but you need at least 1 lord/hero and 1 core? But really, we won't know until it happens, and then you'll either love it and keep playing or hate it and move on (or anywhere in between).

Folomo
14-11-2014, 19:56
Its difficult to really evaluate if 40K has flourished or withered on these last years. It varies so wildly from city to city and area to area. One could assume that there is a bias for people who still play 40k to be around this forum, so a positive bias on the current edition is to be expected.

2 year ago I knew at least 5 different groups of 6-12 people who played 40k around here.
Now, one of those converted to Warmahordes, one to WMH + xwing, another to fantasy, another disappeared and the last was reduced to 4 players who still play 40K.

HelloKitty
14-11-2014, 20:00
Not just city to city - in any given city you will have one group claiming 40k is dead and another group claiming that it got a bunch of new players. There really is no accurate way to get hard data. We know a lot of tournament players did in fact leave based on tournament attendances but narrative groups that don't attend events have no way to measure their population since they don't go to events where they are seen generally.

SteveW
14-11-2014, 20:16
40k has all but died at the stores I play at. It went from the most popular game to having its reserved days canceled and now those days are just free play. Then again fantasy has suffered the same fate recently with infinity and warmahordes taking over.

kylek2235
14-11-2014, 20:22
Not just city to city - in any given city you will have one group claiming 40k is dead and another group claiming that it got a bunch of new players. There really is no accurate way to get hard data. We know a lot of tournament players did in fact leave based on tournament attendances but narrative groups that don't attend events have no way to measure their population since they don't go to events where they are seen generally.

Best way to say it: The community is very fractured at the moment. Whether that turns into a disaster or a success, we don't know yet. it looks an awful lot like the 7th/8th ed fantasy switch.

HelloKitty
15-11-2014, 00:45
Best way to say it: The community is very fractured at the moment. Whether that turns into a disaster or a success, we don't know yet. it looks an awful lot like the 7th/8th ed fantasy switch.

Yessir it's pretty much identical to me.

N00B
16-11-2014, 12:07
What i don't follow is people saying that people have said the sty is falling and have hated every edition. I thought that there was abroad consensus that 8th was the best edition yet? Ok, so a few tweaks can be made and not all things are to everyones tastes but that it is pretty good.

I think this is why the end times worries me - the system isnt broken, it doesn't need a shake up and there is a lot of scope to make things worse.

GW have made it clear that balance is lower down their list of priorities than making cool models - which from a company that sells models is not unreasonable, but given that a certain level of balance has been achieved why would they throw it all away? They could equally well make awesome models and sell them to collectors without mucking about with the rules and building combined profiles and making cannons mandatory.

logan054
16-11-2014, 12:31
What i don't follow is people saying that people have said the sty is falling and have hated every edition. I thought that there was abroad consensus that 8th was the best edition yet? Ok, so a few tweaks can be made and not all things are to everyones tastes but that it is pretty good.

It really depends what you're looking for in a game, I personally haven't enjoyed warhammer as much since they released the first WoC book. I think the game still favors magic far too much, combat characters still lag behind in performance, the balance between cannons and big expensive models needs looking at.


I think this is why the end times worries me - the system isnt broken, it doesn't need a shake up and there is a lot of scope to make things worse.

What you mean like combining profiles of monsters and mounts? that seems like a very good idea, I could see cavalry using combined profiles getting the much needed upgrade they need which would help brets alot. Unless you mean the combined lists? When I started playing the game that's how the armies appeared, combining undead and chaos could allow them to trim the model range down a bit, its not like the split was an amazing success either.

Alltaken
16-11-2014, 13:44
What i don't follow is people saying that people have said the sty is falling and have hated every edition. I thought that there was abroad consensus that 8th was the best edition yet? Ok, so a few tweaks can be made and not all things are to everyones tastes but that it is pretty good.

I think this is why the end times worries me - the system isnt broken, it doesn't need a shake up and there is a lot of scope to make things worse.

Where you around here when 8th came by? I cried to the heavens (where did you take my march block gods of gw rulling!!!!, and some other similar stuff). Many other voiced complaints too, every change of edition has a great level of entry complaint.

I still have some small gripes about those sort of things, but I have learned to appreciate it and see that 8th is a definitive improvement from before, and a seriously great edition.

leopard
16-11-2014, 17:39
Allies I'm all for, with a few slight adjustments - change the scenarios so its not just killing the enemy that matters, then make so allied units don't "score". Also the rule from T&T whereby merc units have a Ld:-1.

Go back to 3rd edition and you had a % for allies and a % for monsters, would like to see both brought back as rules, also allows for 'mini armies' that are really only two or three units and a character - not viable alone but excellent as allies.

8th is good, a few adjustments and it will be better, can't see GW investing the time in a total re-write so can see most of the changes being about how to include downloaded rules/units/equipment etc - making it clear the BRB is only the start of the game.

There will be a few months of rage, there will be a fair bit of 'comp' that tries to turn the clock back, but then after a while people will get used to it.

Just Tony
16-11-2014, 19:42
Allies I'm all for, with a few slight adjustments - change the scenarios so its not just killing the enemy that matters, then make so allied units don't "score". Also the rule from T&T whereby merc units have a Ld:-1.

Go back to 3rd edition and you had a % for allies and a % for monsters, would like to see both brought back as rules, also allows for 'mini armies' that are really only two or three units and a character - not viable alone but excellent as allies.

8th is good, a few adjustments and it will be better, can't see GW investing the time in a total re-write so can see most of the changes being about how to include downloaded rules/units/equipment etc - making it clear the BRB is only the start of the game.

There will be a few months of rage, there will be a fair bit of 'comp' that tries to turn the clock back, but then after a while people will get used to it.

The bolded stands out to me more than anything because I see this as the main problem with the community. The percentage of us who can willingly look at a change in the rules and say "Yep, gone too far and not endorsing it." is fewer than it should be. Every edition we lose some players, but far more of us simply plod on, complaining/critiquing the edition until we become numb to the changes. Was it too much to hope that the current edition would have stayed put, or that the game would retrograde to previous editions? Even now, with the concept of percentages taking a bit of a turn back towards more powerful/imbalanced combos, we still plod on with the game, most of us afraid to swing away because of our investment or some other reason. I think I've actually hit my wall already. I think I'll be going back to 6th and staying there. It really would have been nice if they could have gotten all the army books out before jumping the shark, so that the people who really do like this edition rather than plodding on like I attempted can have a complete edition. Alas, that didn't happen, and I fear that no other edition will make it completely through to a complete release before it gets overhauled.

moonlapse
16-11-2014, 22:33
One thought which has occurred to me is that perhaps 'hero hammer' in 9th edition, if it does go that way, will be tempered by a toning down of magic items in the BRB. Imagine if they took away both 4+ ward items. Suddenly there are no 3++ WoC discs flying around. Take away the Ogre and Giant blade, and Potion of Strength. You want a S7 Red Fury vampire lord? Ok great, but you're going to need a great-weapon for that - no rerolls for you! Take away the DBG, Dragonhelm, and Charmed Shield, and those Daemon Princes look a lot more vulnerable. How tolerable or intolerable 'cheese hammer' becomes may hinge on these OP combos being stripped away. You can have your super killy dragon lord of doom, just not a 1+ 4++ ASF S8 dragon lord of doom. Dwarfs look better by default too, since they'd keep their extensive list of items, which is probably the edge they need.

Let's hope they limit the power-combos to the ET sc's only.

HelloKitty
17-11-2014, 03:27
While I'm certainly not a fan of "hero-hammer" or any type of game that centers around heroes as the main point of focus in my wargames, I have to say that if it moves more towards this direction that the cost of playing is at least somewhat mitigated by the much lower model-count.

leopard
18-11-2014, 22:10
Magic items could be made a lot better, if some of them cost a percentage of the model carrying them. e.g. the Ogre blade is perhaps worth more on say a Bretonnian Lord than say a common goblin big boss, but they pay the same. The concept maybe of the items are in the main book but the costs are in the army books would also be preferable (and allow some lists to have no access to some items).

Personally junk magic and magic items from the core book, have a supplement for spells and another for 'common' items, and then change these every year mix it up a bit - nice easy way for GW to remove, adjust up or down any item thats an issue without admitting any mistakes were made

N00B
19-11-2014, 00:24
Magic items could be made a lot better, if some of them cost a percentage of the model carrying them. e.g. the Ogre blade is perhaps worth more on say a Bretonnian Lord than say a common goblin big boss, but they pay the same. The concept maybe of the items are in the main book but the costs are in the army books would also be preferable (and allow some lists to have no access to some items).

Personally junk magic and magic items from the core book, have a supplement for spells and another for 'common' items, and then change these every year mix it up a bit - nice easy way for GW to remove, adjust up or down any item thats an issue without admitting any mistakes were made

Actually I really like this. With lords and heroes the OP vs Junk choices could be easily managed with regular updates. Once balance has been achieved the list can even be expanded. After all if you look at problem things like Daemon princes the base model is pretty much fine, it is just the addition of the BRB items that makes it a bit too good.

In Dark Trees
20-11-2014, 14:45
I think eighth edition has been a fairly successful one--a substantial improvement over its predecessor. There are some things that need to be adjusted, though. I maintain that magic is far too potent and that players don't have to make a real choice when selecting between a combat-oriented character or a wizard. I never use a Beastlord in my army because a Great Bray Shaman is vastly more dangerous--and I'm willing to pay the marginal premium for his talents. I think the major problem between combat-oriented characters and wizards is that the latter's relatively poor leadership doesn't, often, hamper an army. And that's because I feel eighth edition downplayed the role of leadership in the game. Too many units are steadfast, and battle standard bearers are too damn influential; leadership just doesn't exercise enough of an influence on the game.

Generalized complaints: I'd like to see maneuver be more of an element in Warhammer games; I still think True Line of Sight was a bad addition to the game; and I don't think GW has yet figured out how to make core infantry compete with their elite counterparts.

HelloKitty
20-11-2014, 15:13
I think that's a tall order though (core infantry vs elite infantry) in a system that lets you cherry pick whatever you want.

Given the options, any real historical commander would also always pick elite troops if he could take as much of it that he wanted. The issues they faced were that they simply did not have that many for a variety of reasons and had to use them wisely. In warhammer, we have a never ending supply of elites.

Kahadras
20-11-2014, 15:15
I think eighth edition has been a fairly successful one--a substantial improvement over its predecessor. There are some things that need to be adjusted, though. I maintain that magic is far too potent and that players don't have to make a real choice when selecting between a combat-oriented character or a wizard.

I agree that 8th wasn't bad but it had some real flaws which I'm hoping they address in 9th. Magic needs looking at as does the horde. I'd also like MI to get a bit of a nerf along with the cannon (or how LoS works)

Alltaken
20-11-2014, 16:42
I think eighth edition has been a fairly successful one--a substantial improvement over its predecessor. There are some things that need to be adjusted, though. I maintain that magic is far too potent and that players don't have to make a real choice when selecting between a combat-oriented character or a wizard. I never use a Beastlord in my army because a Great Bray Shaman is vastly more dangerous--and I'm willing to pay the marginal premium for his talents. I think the major problem between combat-oriented characters and wizards is that the latter's relatively poor leadership doesn't, often, hamper an army. And that's because I feel eighth edition downplayed the role of leadership in the game. Too many units are steadfast, and battle standard bearers are too damn influential; leadership just doesn't exercise enough of an influence on the game.

Generalized complaints: I'd like to see maneuver be more of an element in Warhammer games; I still think True Line of Sight was a bad addition to the game; and I don't think GW has yet figured out how to make core infantry compete with their elite counterparts.
Elites are too elites. The good stats are far too available, and combined. S T AS A.

For instance chaos warriors are far too good for core against goblin lvl units.

S4-5 is far to available so light armor and heavy armor are insignificant.

Units that have high strength but cant apply it (kroxigor or hammerers dying in droves before attacking) and over strong units that can apply it superiorly (White lions better than sword masters since they have better S at the same cost for less attacks).


Too much armor and T schews the balance mechanics over the límited numbers of a D6. Thats the principal problem of Fantasy, adjusting the races on a D6 statistical play)

Maoriboy007
20-11-2014, 21:36
I thought that there was abroad consensus that 8th was the best edition yet? Its worth noting that a great number of the people who didn't like 8th have probably dropped out of the community, so those left will tend to give an overwhelmingly positive consensus.
Personally I find 8th a pretty good but equally flawed edition, so I find it weird that 8th seems to have been better at driving away its detractors than even the much maligned 7th. Even those that hated 7th seemed to stick around and even perversely enjoy playing a game they claimed to hate, 8th seems rather for lack of a better word, muted. Hopefully 9th will make the couple of changes that will bring back the old crowd and keep the current one and put that oomph back into the game...

edit:
of the more simple changes id like to see made
No more "test or die effects"
Mute OP spells (only 4-5 obvious ones)
MR works on all spells
Charges give initiative priority bonus
Disruption negates steadfast
Cannons D3 wounds
ASF simply strikes first , at most give +1 bonus to hit rather than re-rolls.
God awful building rules changed
Look out sir against Ranked attacks

Dorack
20-11-2014, 22:13
Hope they drop D6s and move to D10s. We need more granularity to differentiate all the units (and weapons), instead of tons of special rules.

N00B
20-11-2014, 22:30
Its worth noting that a great number of the people who didn't like 8th have probably dropped out of the community, so those left will tend to give an overwhelmingly positive consensus.
Personally I find 8th a pretty good but equally flawed edition, so I find it weird that 8th seems to have been better at driving away its detractors than even the much maligned 7th. Even those that hated 7th seemed to stick around and even perversely enjoy playing a game they claimed to hate, 8th seems rather for lack of a better word, muted. Hopefully 9th will make the couple of changes that will bring back the old crowd and keep the current one and put that oomph back into the game...

edit:
of the more simple changes id like to see made
No more "test or die effects"
Mute OP spells (only 4-5 obvious ones)
MR works on all spells
Charges give initiative priority bonus
Disruption negates steadfast
Cannons D3 wounds
ASF simply strikes first , at most give +1 bonus to hit rather than re-rolls.
God awful building rules changed
Look out sir against Ranked attacks


I do see your point about selection bias.

I think I remain skeptical about some of your changes though. Test or die effects are unpleasant and are particularly nasty if your opponent just happens to take a lore that is particularly nasty against a racial stat that is low. On the other hand it is one of the few things that can keep some balance in the game. If it comes down to being a question of who can spend the most points on a character and nothing to do with the armies, that isnt fun. Test or die is usually on spells that hit deathstars or other units that when massed suck the fun out of the game. I suppose I am saying keeping final transmutation but ditching a lot of the other mega spells would suit me.

MR working on all spells would suddenly create a huge disparity between buffs and hexes if by all spells you mean all enemy spells. If you genuinely mean all spells then it is probably more balance but then it makes the game less interactive. I think my sympathies are with you on this but I can see another side to it.

Charges giving a bonus to initiative I like - it is painful watching two armies square off against each other time after time and the guy with the lower intitiative allways going second across every game. Maybe a D3 bonus on first round of combat?

Disruption negating steadfast is something that I think would be very difficult to implement well. Units like Goblins then become worthless (especially as animosity means you cannot protect their flanks) as their only hope of winning combat is through grinding things down and steadfast is their only hope. As it is, non elite infantry need more help not less help.

Cannons on D3 wounds is a bit weak - personally I would prefer D3 +1.

I actually think ASF works pretty well - it gives elves a bit of a different feel (coupled with their near universal T3).


I wonder if dealing with the elite vs non elite problem you could make it such that supporting attacks could only ever hit on a 5 or 6? That would slightly mute larger units of elites?


I do hope that some of the old crowd come back for 9th, I think this is a great game at the moment with a huge amount of character.

donaldtroll
21-11-2014, 12:30
This is what I fear most for 9th (other than complete unbound). Armies mashed together destroys the balance and subtle strengths and weaknesses of each army. If someone really wants to combine units from 2 armies they can do it now - just get opponents permission. It doesn't need to be officially incorporated into the rules.

Balance? ROFL

Skull cannon is "subtly strong" huh?

GW gave up on balance the same second they realized that broken **** sells more, then wait a month and release a broken counter

Just Tony
21-11-2014, 13:18
It used to be that they would take whatever wasn't selling and buff it slightly in newer editions of the army book/BRB/WD/whatever, but now they build a model up as the big shebang from the get go, and push it out the gate. Hell, I'd be surprised if they don't start to discontinue certain units due to the power shift.

Col. Tartleton
21-11-2014, 13:46
Personally I'd like there to be about a dozen army lists per faction. Like sixth? edition had but expanded. Give different nations their own army rules even if they share 90% of the same units.

The ten kingdoms of Ulthuan, a unified force, and some colonial armies.
The twelve duchies of Bretonnia and some errantry war lists.
The twelve realms of athel loren.
The ten counties of the empire, the four city states, and some mixed or historic forces.
Various chaotic warbands.
Various Orc and goblin hordes.
The Ogre kingdoms.
The various Vampire Counts.
The different Tomb Kingdoms.
etc.

Allying should mostly be within the book. Like here are my Stirland and Ostermark forces allied together under my Grandmaster. Then I'll also have a foreign contingent of Karak Kadrin under their own leaders. That would be a very fluffy army if I was facing a Von Carstein styled vampire counts army and would still have lots of diversity.

Katastrophe
21-11-2014, 14:02
Personally I'd like there to be about a dozen army lists per faction. Like sixth? edition had but expanded. Give different nations their own army rules even if they share 90% of the same units.

The ten kingdoms of Ulthuan, a unified force, and some colonial armies.
The twelve duchies of Bretonnia and some errantry war lists.
The twelve realms of athel loren.
The ten counties of the empire, the four city states, and some mixed or historic forces.
Various chaotic warbands.
Various Orc and goblin hordes.
The Ogre kingdoms.
The various Vampire Counts.
The different Tomb Kingdoms.
etc.

Allying should mostly be within the book. Like here are my Stirland and Ostermark forces allied together under my Grandmaster. Then I'll also have a foreign contingent of Karak Kadrin under their own leaders. That would be a very fluffy army if I was facing a Von Carstein styled vampire counts army and would still have lots of diversity.

Can't you do that without GW explicitly writing it that way.

In Dark Trees
21-11-2014, 14:13
Elites are too elites. The good stats are far too available, and combined. S T AS A.

For instance chaos warriors are far too good for core against goblin lvl units.

S4-5 is far to available so light armor and heavy armor are insignificant.

Units that have high strength but cant apply it (kroxigor or hammerers dying in droves before attacking) and over strong units that can apply it superiorly (White lions better than sword masters since they have better S at the same cost for less attacks).

Too much armor and T schews the balance mechanics over the límited numbers of a D6. Thats the principal problem of Fantasy, adjusting the races on a D6 statistical play)

I started playing Warhammer in 5th edition and always liked the idea behind a mechanic GW dropped in sixth edition: penalties for armor. I feel that units should lose initiative based on their armor saves--to represent the way armor reduces one's nimbleness. It wouldn't have to be a draconian system: something like a 3+ save reduces a model's initiative by one and a 1+ save reduces it by two. It would make selecting armor an actual choice, and by introducing that choice back into the army-building and unit selection process it would free designers to reduce the strength of models and units. Strength four and higher should be exceptionally hard to come by. In making light and heavy armor viable again, you would make light infantry a better proposition than they are now.

As I indicated in my previous reply, I'd also like to see a greater demarcation between wizards and combat heroes. Typically, wizards only have one point fewer leadership than their fighty peers. I'd increase this disparity, meaning a typical sorcerer would have the same leadership as the troops s/he is commanding. That ought to make the choice between a wizard and a hero a more interesting and challenging one.

Finally, I really like the idea of introducing ways to disrupt the steadfast rule. Something needs to be done to reintroduce maneuver into Warhammer, and this might do the trick.

Col. Tartleton
21-11-2014, 14:17
I can write rules for an entire game using these models but who else will play it?

Space Marines get different books for different chapters of space knights. All I want are flavorful rules for each faction and some unique special characters and units. Like Stirland should be able to have Warrior Priests of Morr and Talabecland should be able to have Warrior Priests of Taal etc. Stirland should have a grudge against undead forces while Middenland is particularly aggrieved against beastmen and Nordland and Ostland dislike Warriors of Chaos.

Why not have rules for the Lords of Decay like Warlord Gnawdwell, in addition to their Champions like Warlord Queek, and their Clans like Clan Mors? Make them Goblin and Dwarf fighters.

Why not allow a Lustrian vampire counts army with zombie pirates and cannons led by Luther Harkon?

Katastrophe
21-11-2014, 14:32
I can write rules for an entire game using these models but who else will play it?

Space Marines get different books for different chapters of space knights. All I want are flavorful rules for each faction and some unique special characters and units. Like Stirland should be able to have Warrior Priests of Morr and Talabecland should be able to have Warrior Priests of Taal etc. Stirland should have a grudge against undead forces while Middenland is particularly aggrieved against beastmen and Nordland and Ostland dislike Warriors of Chaos.

Why not have rules for the Lords of Decay like Warlord Gnawdwell, in addition to their Champions like Warlord Queek, and their Clans like Clan Mors? Make them Goblin and Dwarf fighters.

Why not allow a Lustrian vampire counts army with zombie pirates and cannons led by Luther Harkon?

In a friendly game, you can do whatever you like. No one will limit you or your rules in narrative play. In tournament or competitive gaming you have to stick with the rules that are "as balanced as GW is capable". For GW, they've given you a framework to start with for you to shape your army. Write your own, folks will play friendly games with you.

That's a fair trade off. The amount of work you're expecting or wanting from GW is completely counter to their culture and capability. They barely succinctly write rules for the armies generally and balance is still questionable. Further specifying rules for subforces would be silly on GWs part because it doesn't do the only thing they care about - selling models.

dirach.
21-11-2014, 14:35
I am pretty relaxed about the new edition. But I think it would a wrong step to make a skirmish game out of Warhammer. (But I would like a skirmish game along with Warhammer) But I will make my decision when the new edition come.

When it comes to allies it comes with some pros and cons. Historical all editions from 1st to 5th was, in the core rules, “ally” systems. Still the tournaments I went to during 4th/5th edition had a “no allies” rule.

The allies will not be fitting for the tournament scene for balance reasons. Still the tournament scene will regulate to a fitting format anyway, and have never followed the rules as written. Allies will not change that. I guess most tournament will be without allies.

For the casual scene an allies system will be more flexible and you are in better control over what kind of army I want to run. I can choose to make a 4th/5th edition flavored army with dwarf and ogres. I can have a Nurgle army with beastmen, warriors and demons. So you will be closer to the original goal for Warhammer:” Collect the miniatures you like and have a good time.”

SuperHappyTime
21-11-2014, 18:11
I can write rules for an entire game using these models but who else will play it?

Space Marines get different books for different chapters of space knights. All I want are flavorful rules for each faction and some unique special characters and units. Like Stirland should be able to have Warrior Priests of Morr and Talabecland should be able to have Warrior Priests of Taal etc. Stirland should have a grudge against undead forces while Middenland is particularly aggrieved against beastmen and Nordland and Ostland dislike Warriors of Chaos.

Why not have rules for the Lords of Decay like Warlord Gnawdwell, in addition to their Champions like Warlord Queek, and their Clans like Clan Mors? Make them Goblin and Dwarf fighters.

Why not allow a Lustrian vampire counts army with zombie pirates and cannons led by Luther Harkon?

Because I want to run an army composed entirely of Daemon Princes, or I want to play wood elves with cannons, or dwarfs with a dominating magic phase. But none of that is either fun or fair to my opponent.

Heck, the High Elf army book set up like that already

N00B
21-11-2014, 23:47
Personally I think allies could be pretty broad and work well enough. Allowing any core units (that dont count against core allowance) and only hero level characters could work pretty well. Couple that with not being able to use inspiring presence or similar rules and you can still build armies with fluffy detachments.

Spiney Norman
22-11-2014, 00:32
As I indicated in my previous reply, I'd also like to see a greater demarcation between wizards and combat heroes. Typically, wizards only have one point fewer leadership than their fighty peers. I'd increase this disparity, meaning a typical sorcerer would have the same leadership as the troops s/he is commanding. That ought to make the choice between a wizard and a hero a more interesting and challenging one.

Finally, I really like the idea of introducing ways to disrupt the steadfast rule. Something needs to be done to reintroduce maneuver into Warhammer, and this might do the trick.

I would as well, I actually think a good way to do this would be decoupling the inspiring presence rule from the army general and instead attaching it to the generic combat lords and their special character equivalents, so that you could choose a sorceror Lord as your general, but in doing so you would lose out on the inspiring presence rule completely. It would be a big change, but it would certainly encourage players to bring a proper general again, just as the 8th edition rules for the army Battle standard brought back the BsB to most armies that had all but ignored the concept in 6th and 7th edition.

Alltaken
22-11-2014, 12:50
Except High elves would just run the hoeth dude and not care about both things

Just Tony
22-11-2014, 13:38
I would as well, I actually think a good way to do this would be decoupling the inspiring presence rule from the army general and instead attaching it to the generic combat lords and their special character equivalents, so that you could choose a sorceror Lord as your general, but in doing so you would lose out on the inspiring presence rule completely. It would be a big change, but it would certainly encourage players to bring a proper general again, just as the 8th edition rules for the army Battle standard brought back the BsB to most armies that had all but ignored the concept in 6th and 7th edition.

Speak for yourself, I ran a BSB in every army I had from the moment 6th started ;)

What I think would take care of the whole character issue is a comp rule where you can never have more magic users than combat characters. Fixes the problem immediately without having to spam special rules or try to break down into percentages.

SteveW
22-11-2014, 13:54
Speak for yourself, I ran a BSB in every army I had from the moment 6th started ;)

What I think would take care of the whole character issue is a comp rule where you can never have more magic users than combat characters. Fixes the problem immediately without having to spam special rules or try to break down into percentages.


Would not work within the lore. How would a daemon army run? They have no characters that can't be wizards(khorn not withstanding).

Just Tony
22-11-2014, 14:06
Easy, make the being a wizard part optional, and enforce the limit. I'm sure whatever rule they come up with Chaos will be able to bypass it anyway because BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!1! and crap like that.

SteveW
22-11-2014, 14:55
I think people should just play bigger games. The 12 dice limit caps how effective magic can be and once you hit around 4k points it fits perfectly IMO.

Acephale
22-11-2014, 21:12
I think people should just play bigger games. The 12 dice limit caps how effective magic can be and once you hit around 4k points it fits perfectly IMO.

Getting those big games going is not always doable, even if you want to. They take time, require bigger boards, the model count becomes ridiculous and thus transport is an issue, etc. And sometimes you just want a quick, fun game, not a whole afternoon of mass carnage.

Besides, a system that "requires" certain pont levels to function properly is flawed. The game should work at all point levels. Designing a magic system that scales equally well for both 500p and 10 000p games is not that hard really, It's pretty weird that GW can't seem to get it right.

Dark Elf
22-11-2014, 22:36
Oh boy, a wishlisting thread! Wait for one of these :D

Anyway here's what I'd like to see:
- Warhammer finally getting better rules for multiplayer games (as in 2v2, 3v3...). I think that it would be their best investment in this game. The current rules are... disappointing...
- I could see something like detachment&mercenaries rules. As long as they are well written they could work magnificently. If it's just unbound - me and my palls will stick to the 8th. Or 7th. Or 6th.
- Magic needs to be a bit toned down. The way as it is currently, a lord mage with a good cast can win you the game with 1 spell. Lets not have that anymore.
- Steadfast. Horrible rule. Change it. Lets now have it only if the unit is fighting frontally. Not on sides and rear. Or at least lets not have it work with reforming amid defeat. It's just ridiculous.

Obviously I think the only thing that will actually happen is the one with allies. Gotta sell them models, don't they?

Scammel
22-11-2014, 23:10
That's actually a damn good suggestion, Spiney - a slight shame that it's very easy to fit in both a tooled-up fighter and caster these days, though.


Except High elves would just run the hoeth dude and not care about both things

Who's to say the Loremaster would have Inspiring Presence?


- Steadfast. Horrible rule. Change it. Lets now have it only if the unit is fighting frontally. Not on sides and rear. Or at least lets not have it work with reforming amid defeat. It's just ridiculous.

Steadfast is completely fine. See both the concerns expressed with elite troops in this very thread and the domination of Goblins and Skaven at tournaments.

Katastrophe
22-11-2014, 23:54
Steadfast is completely fine. See both the concerns expressed with elite troops in this very thread and the domination of Goblins and Skaven at tournaments.

Hence the 10 threads that go on for pages disputing whether it is broken and how to fix it. The fact that many people hate the rule and feel that it is broken and many people love the rule and build their entire strategy around it, there is no way it can be said that the community agrees it is fine.

Dark Elf
23-11-2014, 00:09
Steadfast is completely fine. See both the concerns expressed with elite troops in this very thread and the domination of Goblins and Skaven at tournaments.

I can't agree. As I said it doesn't have to go completely out, but it's ridiculous to have it while flanked and for a combat reform.

Or how about this, cavalry except light cavalry negates stedfast on the turn it charges?

Shadeseraph
23-11-2014, 00:39
Or how about this, cavalry except light cavalry negates stedfast on the turn it charges?

Soooo... back to cavalry domination? Well, actually, last year ETC was dominated by character buses (at least for HE armies), anyway, so I guess boosting them even more won't change much.

facepalm
23-11-2014, 00:41
I can't agree. As I said it doesn't have to go completely out, but it's ridiculous to have it while flanked and for a combat reform.

Or how about this, cavalry except light cavalry negates stedfast on the turn it charges?

If you mess with steadfast you risk reintroducing herohammer. In your example if i take a CC monster on a horse he can now just break any unit he charges, or is there to be a limit on the cav unit size for breaking steadfast? because then it just creates a small cavalry tax for my hero. Love or hate steadfast, if you remove it you will break some armies. Infantry can never win combat through wounds against a nurgle deamon prince or unkillable tzeench lord on disk or blender vampire lord .... etc. ET has added a load more uber heroes and a lot of people are worried about how some of them are OP, im not because i know that they can never make there points back if i can manage to trap on in combat with infantry. Without Steadfast i lose a unit a turn to these monsters.

Lord Zarkov
23-11-2014, 00:43
I can't agree. As I said it doesn't have to go completely out, but it's ridiculous to have it while flanked and for a combat reform.

Or how about this, cavalry except light cavalry negates stedfast on the turn it charges?

No, because that would defy the point of it in the first place and we'd risk returning to 7th Ed Cavalryhammer.

That said, I think there's a good case for it to nullified if a unit is disrupted (which requires some tactics to set up) and a reasonable case for monsters to count as having a single rank (to stop the '5 goblins are Ld9 and stubborn versus as dragon' thing).

Dark Elf
23-11-2014, 01:31
If you mess with steadfast you risk reintroducing herohammer. In your example if i take a CC monster on a horse he can now just break any unit he charges, or is there to be a limit on the cav unit size for breaking steadfast? because then it just creates a small cavalry tax for my hero. Love or hate steadfast, if you remove it you will break some armies. Infantry can never win combat through wounds against a nurgle deamon prince or unkillable tzeench lord on disk or blender vampire lord .... etc. ET has added a load more uber heroes and a lot of people are worried about how some of them are OP, im not because i know that they can never make there points back if i can manage to trap on in combat with infantry. Without Steadfast i lose a unit a turn to these monsters.

Well first up, we were talking about 9th here, not ET. But I get your point. That is why I also proposed other options, such as having stedfast when fighting frontally but losing it if you have an enemy on your flank/rear.
You gave a good suggestion on demanding minimum limit for cavalry to break stedfast. It would be silly to break a unit of 30 with 2 cavalry. That limit could be %.


No, because that would defy the point of it in the first place and we'd risk returning to 7th Ed Cavalryhammer

Not really. After all we do have step up today, and unlike in the seventh, we strike at initiative order. So no cavalryhammer wouldn't repeat.

SuperHappyTime
23-11-2014, 03:21
Well first up, we were talking about 9th here, not ET. But I get your point. That is why I also proposed other options, such as having stedfast when fighting frontally but losing it if you have an enemy on your flank/rear.
You gave a good suggestion on demanding minimum limit for cavalry to break stedfast. It would be silly to break a unit of 30 with 2 cavalry. That limit could be %.

Not really. After all we do have step up today, and unlike in the seventh, we strike at initiative order. So no cavalryhammer wouldn't repeat.

I'd say switch steadfast to apply from counting the number of ranks to counting the number of remaining wounds the unit can still absorb, a "we've got more than them, we can take 'em" approach. Regardless of my idea, steadfast isn't a bad rule. Combat isn't too likely to change too much from one round to the next.

For cavalry, here's my idea: If they charge into combat, they get a one turn stomp-like effect (call it trample) with a number of hits equal to the front rank, ASF with strength equal to that of the steed's.

dalezzz
23-11-2014, 10:48
Elite units and especially cav are already Far, far better most basic core , remove steadfast and 90% of core will be relegated to minimum sized units of speed bumps and redirecters. At least the poor elves and chaos will be able to win a bit easier.

what ever you do , don't take a unit with some ranks to deal with this "massive problem"

Scammel
23-11-2014, 10:49
Folks might have leg to stand on with their criticisms of Steadfast if the units that are typically touted as the worst offenders - Goblins, State Troops etc - were even remotely relevant to competitive play. Instead we have an environment dominated by Elven elites, flying monsters, monstrous cav and chariots, something that certainly wouldn't be happening if Steadfast was anywhere near as good as it's claimed to be. Get out there and actually play some Warhammer.

Kahadras
23-11-2014, 11:03
steadfast isn't a bad rule

Steadfast is fine IMHO it's leadership checks in general that need looking at. It's far too easy to have the majority of your army under the general's and BSB's bubble meaning that steadfast on a 7/8 becomes steadfast on a 9/10 with a reroll. I'd really like GW to look at this kind of stuff in 9th. Fear and Terror should be something you need to worry about. Obviously we don't want to go back to the days of autobreak but it would be nice for it to be more than a bit of an inconvinience (especialy fear)

Grupax
23-11-2014, 11:06
Folks might have leg to stand on with their criticisms of Steadfast if the units that are typically touted as the worst offenders - Goblins, State Troops etc - were even remotely relevant to competitive play. Instead we have an environment dominated by Elven elites, flying monsters, monstrous cav and chariots, something that certainly wouldn't be happening if Steadfast was anywhere near as good as it's claimed to be. Get out there and actually play some Warhammer.

Well said.
I really love the mechanic of steadfast

as tactical note just this though i'd like to add that steadfast doesnt work for blocks in forests or rivers... wich can severely hamper armies that overly rely on steadfast.

Lord Zarkov
23-11-2014, 11:10
Steadfast is fine IMHO it's leadership checks in general that need looking at. It's far too easy to have the majority of your army under the general's and BSB's bubble meaning that steadfast on a 7/8 becomes steadfast on a 9/10 with a reroll. I'd really like GW to look at this kind of stuff in 9th. Fear and Terror should be something you need to worry about. Obviously we don't want to go back to the days of autobreak but it would be nice for it to be more than a bit of an inconvinience (especialy fear)

Perhaps steadfast/stubborn should not work in conjunction with IP? Ld 7/8 with a re-roll is still good, but not as borderline unbreakable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

thesoundofmusica
23-11-2014, 11:35
There are already ways to break a huge deep infantry block. Steadfast makes for great games instead of armies running off a the first sight of combat. There are still tactics involved, they just dont suit the whiners errr I mean some people.

theunwantedbeing
23-11-2014, 11:39
There are already ways to break a huge deep infantry block. Steadfast makes for great games instead of armies running off a the first sight of combat. There are still tactics involved, they just dont suit the whiners errr I mean some people.

Yeah break steadfast by...
...having the other guy be an idiot and put his giant block into a wood/river
...bringing your own even more massive ranked block
...sniping the enemy General & BSB
...grind them down 20+ models a round with your own elite deathstar
...uber spell the steadfast block to nothingness

Those are all the non-specific ways I think.

Shadeseraph
23-11-2014, 12:05
Last week I grinded 80 skeletons in 2 combat rounds with 12 swordmasters, 6 silver helms and a well casted timewrap. No characters involved asides of the caster. Should them have been something else that actually could use steadfast, I had plenty time to grind them down, and I had managed to keep the general busy elsewhere. Yesterday I had to fight against a huge block of dryads. I just ignored it and killed everything else. Huge steadfast blocks are cumbersome and hard to maneuver, and it's easy to goad them, or even use them to difficult your enemy's own movement.

Also, something I've found is that most hordes aren't very good at handling heavy cavalry. You can tarpit them indefinitely with a small, 5-6 man unit with a banner if you keep your general and BSB close by (we were arguing the horde itself was doing that).

leopard
23-11-2014, 16:07
Agree the issue with steadfast is the way leadership works not the steadfast rule, it reads like the way Ld works in 8th and steadfast were not tested together.

When they dropped 'Cool', 'Intelligence' and 'Willpower' as separate statistics the game suffered - was good to be able to have well led troops who were jittery, fearless troops who were also clueless. Could put some charge reactions on a leadership or intelligence test, fear & terror on a Cool test, magic against willpower - ditto say charging into dangerous terrain or say over a fanatic?

Would also allow steadfast to say modify willpower but not leadership.

Grupax
23-11-2014, 17:03
Yeah break steadfast by...
...having the other guy be an idiot and put his giant block into a wood/river

...
definately this is what i meant :s
having a 5 man elite squad on the riverbank can deter a smart player from trying to cross it with his steadfast block.
a combat mage can safely hide in the woods.
frenzy luring / overrunning / ... there's more then one way to bring the forest or river to the opponent
...

there's the -3ld spell, then there's darkmagic (dark and wood) that nullify inspiring presence, and there's a deamon spell that does the same thing.

also what's wrong with 'non-specific ways'.

Scammel
23-11-2014, 17:26
Agree the issue with steadfast is the way leadership works not the steadfast rule, it reads like the way Ld works in 8th and steadfast were not tested together.

I don't think there's any issue with either Steadfast or Ld at all. There's an awful lot of tests to take every turn in this edition and a lot of them can have brutal consequences - panic, break, reform, restrain pursuit/overrun/Frenzy charge etc. Folks run BSBs and the Standard of Discipline because Ld has such an impact and once an army loses one of these lynchpins those half-a-dozen tests per turn really start to bite.

In Dark Trees
23-11-2014, 17:54
Folks might have leg to stand on with their criticisms of Steadfast if the units that are typically touted as the worst offenders - Goblins, State Troops etc - were even remotely relevant to competitive play. Instead we have an environment dominated by Elven elites, flying monsters, monstrous cav and chariots, something that certainly wouldn't be happening if Steadfast was anywhere near as good as it's claimed to be. Get out there and actually play some Warhammer.

A concise and absolutely spot-on post. I am on the fence about the dynamic steadfast attempted to introduce. I appreciate that GW sought to make core infantry viable--even if it didn't succeed in doing so (as usual, the best of game design intentions were scuppered by inept army book writing.) I do not, however, appreciate that GW's efforts, especially early in the edition, resulted in games of cumbersome infantry blocks hammering at each other in the centers of stark, barren battlefields and that assassinating battle standard bearers became a virtual requisite for victory.

Steadfast is problematic for a number of reasons. It was introduced as part of a game design paradigm that incentivized big units, offered few opportunities to disrupt these units, and mandated that players wholly destroy them to earn any victory points. These related adjustments to the game resulted in a less tactical, maneuver-centric game. GW has, as usual, tried to repair the inadequacies in the paradigm it adopted at the start of this edition by introducing exorbitantly powerful magic users and bolstering the already considerable power of monsters and monstrous cavalry. These expedients have introduced new problems into the game--and end up nullifying the whole purpose of steadfast.

I suppose I want a return to the early days of sixth edition, when 20-model units ruled the board, armies contained lots of different units, and characters could hardly dent even a relatively fragile unit. Core units can be made more viable by reducing the killing power of elite units, monsters, and heavy cavalry. It's a simple shift in approach, but it would require consistency and discipline to implement and sustain.

Katastrophe
23-11-2014, 19:26
I suppose I want a return to the early days of sixth edition, when 20-model units ruled the board, armies contained lots of different units, and characters could hardly dent even a relatively fragile unit. Core units can be made more viable by reducing the killing power of elite units, monsters, and heavy cavalry. It's a simple shift in approach, but it would require consistency and discipline to implement and sustain.

Agreed. That is the game I prefer as well. Big steadfast units where casualties is far more important that combat resolution lacks fun (which I define as tactics and strategy in maneuvering to win rather than creating high casualty counts).

SteveW
23-11-2014, 20:20
If anything GW needs to make steadfast better.

Scammel
23-11-2014, 21:24
I think people have forgotten just how much crap from previous editions 8th had to plough over and don't grasp how little it would take to catapult it back into the dark ages. The game isn't perfect as it is now, but I struggle to imagine anyone wanting to go back to 7th having ever actually played 7th. Steadfast, BSB re-rolls and the likes are the fingertips of many mediocre-but-ultimately-useable-because-8th-is-fairly-well-balanced units clinging onto the edge of a precipice upon which the stuff that's really good and would only get better stands.

HelloKitty
23-11-2014, 23:05
A return to past editions would see me sit out like I did in the middle of 7th.

SteveW
23-11-2014, 23:46
A return to past editions would see me sit out like I did in the middle of 7th.


I sat out the end of seventh as well because of the shenanigans.

Spiney Norman
23-11-2014, 23:52
A return to past editions would see me sit out like I did in the middle of 7th.

In fairness to 7th edition it's failure was down to desperately poor army book design from high elves onward, not bad core rules. I remember 6th edition fondly because you could go out and buy a box of 16 Saurus and have a viable unit for your army, now you need 2-3 of those for just one unit, which not only pushes up the cost of entry, but also makes painting a new unit an extremely daunting proposition.

I remember putting down a unit of 30 B4SP night goblins with Skarsnik at the beginning of 7th and my opponent remarking "wow that's a big unit", how things change...

HelloKitty
23-11-2014, 23:53
I agree army book design was horrible.

However I disagree that the core rules didn't contribute. The core rules were why few if any armies that I faced bother taking infantry at all. All of the armies I faced save for armies like dwarves were all checkerboarded cavalry armies with monsters and chariots. Armies never looked like what I would consider an army would look like until 8th edition. I chose to sit out 7th edition because:

* armies never looked like armies - they looked like checkerboarded cav deployments of min sized cav units
* the game became far too dry and predictable in how they played out
* static movement led to a lot of arguing over an eighth of an inch
* armies did not act like i would consider armies would act. In my head I see armies moving forward and smashing into each other based off of media, games, books, and historical study. The reality saw a lot of armies running toward each other and then starting to move laterally trying to sucker the other side into stepping forward an eighth of an inch. It ruined that visual for me of two armies crashing into each other because who charged in 7th edition often won combat due to no steadfast, no step up, and chargers always striking first.
* the vampire counts and demon books were the icing on the cake for me shelving my armies at that point and doing other things for a few years until 8th came out.

N00B
24-11-2014, 00:28
The problem with removing steadfast is that it makes certain units simply pointless in some matchups - not just weak or a bit ineffective but just a way of evaporating victory points. Removing steadfast would be fine but you would have to replace it with some substitute in order that simply using an army that has access to better troops on a model by model basis doesn't win you the game (although some people do appear to think it should). I could see something like losing steadfast but never allowing break tests to be modified by more than the attacking units rank bonus to work - elites would then have to make a commitment to a big block and then to have the challenge of getting that into the right combats.

Possibly steadfast could still exist but become a special rule to represent the mob mentality of some races - any unit with models 5pts per model or lower gets it for example (although I am not sure this works so well).

Just Tony
24-11-2014, 01:03
I giggle at people being afraid of min/max units. If a five man cav unit charged me, I'd laugh, hold, and win with static res. Seriously, did no one ever take full regiments in 7th? The biggest problems I saw with 7th was the ability to fight in two combats a turn if you timed it right, and the crumble rule for Swarms. Past that, I never worried about cav unless they had ranks. Well, until Dark Elves. That army book is what killed my enthusiasm for 7th. Then comes 8th. "Yo dawg, we heard you like special rules, so we put special rules in your special rules so you can use special rules while you use special rules." Lord...

HelloKitty
24-11-2014, 01:29
Seriously, did no one ever take full regiments in 7th?

I can't speak for everyone but I will say 7th is when i started winding down out of my tournament phase. The regional and indy GTs that i went to regularly - I would say that full regiments were a very rare sight. So no, I very rarely saw people taking full regiments in the games I played in, both locally and regionally at the tournament level.

Liber
24-11-2014, 01:35
Perhaps steadfast/stubborn should not work in conjunction with IP? Ld 7/8 with a re-roll is still good, but not as borderline unbreakable.


I don't have much issue with current steadfast rules. I think large hordes and elite cavalry etc. are at a decently balanced point right now.


One issue I do have is stubborn - more specifically the crown of command. Its WAY too cheap considering the large deathstar units commonly found in 8th, and the fact that a character can be sent to the back after declining challenge (so unable to use his/her leadership) yet the crowns stubborn effect still works...just rubs me the wrong way. Very un-fluffy.


Edit - I realized this is pretty close to another point of mine - so I'll state it here: the magic items in the BRB are too good/cheap for what they do. I feel like with every 8th ed. armybook released the general consensus on the army specific magic items has been "well such and such is pretty good...but this BRB equivelent is slightly cheaper so no reason to ever take it"

At least thats what I've been hearing. I'm sure there are lots of exceptions. But over all my feeling has always been that more army specific items in use = more interesting game (and by game I mean WHFB as a whole, not one specific battle).

Tarrell
24-11-2014, 03:08
Just thought of an interesting fluff idea (or I think it is).
One of the strange aspects about warhammer is that 1 general rules, and heroes are just added followers that you place in strategic places.
Well I think to tie in with a Hero Hammer meets uber armys. we divide things up.
Gone are the days of 50% 25%, blabla.
Heroes are usually some specially talented individual that rose through the ranks.
Well what happened to those ranks, where did he came from, what happened to guys he fought beside.?

Here's my spin:
Generals lead captains who lead regiments.
So we break up big armys into "warbands or the like", each warband is represented by a hero.
Hero's may have 1 Special unit that they are a part of, e.g Elves, A sword master hero/ wizard.
Or some young princling that has a following of some 2 core units. Silverhelms & spearmen. (No Rare, armys only)
Now we have a hero hammer setup, 1 hero and 1 or 2 units as their following, quick skirmish games.
Say we want a bigger battle, Combine some of the warbands together, temporarily representing a army (This is like how real army's of old formed).
Now we can add our general.
Say per every 3 war bands, the army get a Rare choice.

To make things interesting say a hero gives the units under his command a special ability, something small but strategic. "Hold the line" +1 to toughness of the heros units for the elected turn, 1 use only.
Or maybe the hero has benefited being part of a unit type: Sword masters, hero receives Blade master, +1 to hit.

I think something like this would be great to players and inspire more story.

inquisitorsz
24-11-2014, 05:58
Personally I dislike 3 things.

1. I'm not a fan of steadfast. I think it works as intended is some instances, but is way too powerful in other situations. Stubborn used to be a powerful and elite rule... now every block unit gets it for free. On one hand you want to make a block unit useful in some way, but to have 200pts of infantry hold up a dragon for 3 turns is absurd. That's the whole point of a dragon/hero... infantry units should be cannon fodder.
Even against cav - to have a block of 30 troops decimated by 5 wild riders in the flank and still hold on steadfast is bonkers.

I think it's mostly due to the fact that it's bloody hard to cancel ranks these days.... You rarely get cav units that are greater than 10+ and even then you'd need 15 because they'd be a massive target for shooting and magic. Some warbeasts can do it like dire wolves or war hounds but that's still a big unit physically and pretty tricky to use.
So you're left with infantry blocks to carry out flank attacks and in my experience that rarely happens either due to no room, or having their own targets to deal with. if you get to a stage where one core block can flank another one the game is usually over by then.

Is this a solution? maybe not. perhaps if it's easy to cancel ranks again then steadfast will be next to useless and we'll go too far back in the other direction... I dunno. Currently I just think that big units are too hard to kill. Especially if they are immune to psychology.

2. Random charge distances. This is probably my biggest hate. It's simply too random. It also has much more impact on the game than steadfast does.
I get that people don't want to argue over every single inch but that still happens with random rolls... is the 9 I rolled enough? Am I in? You can pre-measure everything now (which you couldn't before) so it's much easier to set your stuff up tactically. It became far more a game of skill and tactics than dice. I think I skipped 7th ed, but I think it worked pretty well in 6th. These days you get dwarves charging only 2 inches less than elves and one **** roll can have basic core troops charging cavalry.
I know it's a dice game and it's random in almost every way, but it's incredibly disheartening when the best player and the best tactician gets screwed over by dice.
I also think that stuff like this really promotes min/maxing. In an ideal world there should be a system where a great player can win with an average army and a terrible player can lose with a super powerful army. The second part can still be true due to the current randomness, but the first part usually isn't.

3. Magic. Again it comes back to the randomness. It's much worse in smaller games but the ability to have cheap suicide mages with spells that can wipe out whole units is super annoying. So many table flip situations when one wizard 6 dices a searing doom and kills 400pts of knights... And it's actually pretty easy because rolling double 6 on 6 dice is a 26% chance. that's 1 in 4 to almost guarantee you're points back twofold. A 4D6 doombolt is another great example (especially because it can come from bloody warlocks and they only take a few wounds from the miscast).
I kind of like how the power dice work and how it's a bit limited and you need to make important choices, but the instant unstoppable army destroying spells are never as much fun in practice as they are on paper.
Side note, I'd like some sort of minimum power dice. like maybe 2D6+2. Just so that when you roll 2 or 3 for two turns in a row you don't just pack up and go home. Especially if it's a magic dependent army like undead.

Obviously all the above stuff is just from experience, and just from my local meta, you're experience may vary. I'm not calling for complete removal of the above rules, just tweak it to be a bit more of an intelligent game. I fondly remember where this game used to be about strategy not about luck. maybe that's just because I was much younger back then but find that these days it makes little difference how you play and what choices you make as long as your dice rolls are favorable. Bad deployment will still lose you the game but otherwise, even the best troops can fail stubborn break checks on Ld 9, or roll lots of 1s and 2s to hit, while the worst 6+ ward saves can win you a combat.

inquisitorsz
24-11-2014, 06:09
the magic items in the BRB are too good/cheap for what they do.

There's a couple of reasons why I don't have a problem with this.
1. Everyone has access to them (cept deamons I guess)
2. They've significantly cut down the number of items in each army book. These days, you get like 2 in each category (eg Wood Elves get 3 weapons, 1 armor, 3 enchanted, 1 arcane, 2 banners. And 3 of these items are 100pts.) Where as last edition you'd get 3-4 pages of goodies. Check out the skaven or bretonian books. Heaps of fun stuff there. Personally I'd prefer to have more army unique stuff and less common stuff but I think GW is trying to simplify/dumb that stuff down a bit.

The situations you mentioned with BSBs or Crowns of Command can be easily fixed by saying they don't work if model is sent to the back (unless you're skaven). As a side note, I really don't like how challenges work right now. Not sure how to fix it but it's pretty silly. The fact that unit champions can refuse without penalty is just weird (though people still argue about that one).

SuperHappyTime
24-11-2014, 11:59
There's a couple of reasons why I don't have a problem with this.
1. Everyone has access to them (cept deamons I guess)
2. They've significantly cut down the number of items in each army book. These days, you get like 2 in each category (eg Wood Elves get 3 weapons, 1 armor, 3 enchanted, 1 arcane, 2 banners. And 3 of these items are 100pts.) Where as last edition you'd get 3-4 pages of goodies. Check out the skaven or bretonian books. Heaps of fun stuff there. Personally I'd prefer to have more army unique stuff and less common stuff but I think GW is trying to simplify/dumb that stuff down a bit.

The situations you mentioned with BSBs or Crowns of Command can be easily fixed by saying they don't work if model is sent to the back (unless you're skaven). As a side note, I really don't like how challenges work right now. Not sure how to fix it but it's pretty silly. The fact that unit champions can refuse without penalty is just weird (though people still argue about that one).

Dwarves don't have access to BRB items either, but we can make a lot of those items in our own way via runic items.

With WEs you have to include the Enchanted Arrows in with customization options.

And of course the number of common items are much larger than in 8th than 7th.

I'd like to see more special items, but having most in the BRB means I don't have to own every army book to know everything and be as surprised as to what my opponent could have equipped.

theunwantedbeing
24-11-2014, 12:17
The situations you mentioned with BSBs or Crowns of Command can be easily fixed by saying they don't work if model is sent to the back (unless you're skaven).
The crown could easily just get removed from the game completely.
The BSB is trickier but making it only work for break tests(and rally tests) and nothing else would go a long way to making it less of a problem.

You still get "low leadership" armies sitting on mostly leadership 9/10 of course, but at least they're not getting that against psychology making it likely to actually have some impact on the game, as opposed to none unless they're absurdly unlucky.


As a side note, I really don't like how challenges work right now. Not sure how to fix it but it's pretty silly. The fact that unit champions can refuse without penalty is just weird (though people still argue about that one).
If champions were only allowed to accept and not issues them it would really help things.

Scammel
24-11-2014, 18:24
1. I'm not a fan of steadfast. I think it works as intended is some instances, but is way too powerful in other situations. Stubborn used to be a powerful and elite rule... now every block unit gets it for free. On one hand you want to make a block unit useful in some way, but to have 200pts of infantry hold up a dragon for 3 turns is absurd.

It is absurd, because no-one in their right minds sends flying monster into a large, Steadfast infantry block (not that those infantry don't break after two turns of combat, mind).


The BSB is trickier but making it only work for break tests(and rally tests) and nothing else would go a long way to making it less of a problem.


And provide a much-needed boost to independently high-Ld armies such as Warriors and Elves.

Wait...

Alltaken
24-11-2014, 18:32
Yeah, people that cant deal with steadfast dont seem to play to the rulebook winning conditions

Just Tony
24-11-2014, 21:38
Okay, this'll show how little I know about 8th, but it will be pertinent in 9th if it comes to fruition. Does the General's leadership work with Steadfast? Every other version of Warhammer I've played would use either the unmodified unit Ld or the general's modified Ld, whichever was better.

Shadeseraph
24-11-2014, 21:48
Okay, this'll show how little I know about 8th, but it will be pertinent in 9th if it comes to fruition. Does the General's leadership work with Steadfast? Every other version of Warhammer I've played would use either the unmodified unit Ld or the general's modified Ld, whichever was better.

It does. And you also get rerolls if your BSB is close by.

Katastrophe
24-11-2014, 22:36
It does. And you also get rerolls if your BSB is close by.

This (Inspiring Presence and BSB) is what most people complain about as to it been far too reliable for low leadership troops. They are all now tarpits because smaller units have to essentially kill them to a man and even 50 goblins with sword and shield can hold other units up for a long time, even suffering mass casualties each turn.

leopard
24-11-2014, 22:55
Random charges would be a lot better if GW remembered there are dice other than the D6 out there

Just Tony
24-11-2014, 23:26
This (Inspiring Presence and BSB) is what most people complain about as to it been far too reliable for low leadership troops. They are all now tarpits because smaller units have to essentially kill them to a man and even 50 goblins with sword and shield can hold other units up for a long time, even suffering mass casualties each turn.

You know, every time I think I'm ready to bite the bullet, buy the new rulebook and appropriate army books and dive into this edition, I get given a new reason to play Oldhammer. That sort of crap would get old REALLY quick.

So basically treat Steadfast like normal Stubborn: only use on the unit's Ld, whether led or not.

Kahadras
25-11-2014, 00:39
So basically treat Steadfast like normal Stubborn: only use on the unit's Ld, whether led or not.

This.

Personaly I'd like to see the general's leadership and the BSB reroll as being only for the unit they join rather than the bubble.

Shadeseraph
25-11-2014, 01:38
You know, every time I think I'm ready to bite the bullet, buy the new rulebook and appropriate army books and dive into this edition, I get given a new reason to play Oldhammer. That sort of crap would get old REALLY quick.

So basically treat Steadfast like normal Stubborn: only use on the unit's Ld, whether led or not.

Soooo... basically, invalidate gobbs and skavenslaves? Because LD5, stubborn or not, isn't exactly useful for a block that's supposed to tarpit things.

Just Tony
25-11-2014, 01:49
This.

Personaly I'd like to see the general's leadership and the BSB reroll as being only for the unit they join rather than the bubble.

Im fine with the bubble, I'm just not cool with it in combo with Steadfast.


Soooo... basically, invalidate gobbs and skavenslaves? Because LD5, stubborn or not, isn't exactly useful for a block that's supposed to tarpit things.

First, where is it written that these units are supposed to tarpit? Second, what's stopping you from putting a character or the BSB in those units to hold the battle line? Third, with Step Up, how are they killing enough for you to NOT strike back and at least limit the amount you lose by? Fourth, if those units are THAT bad, why do you run them in the first place when you have studier stuff? The entire game shouldn't suffer because you choose to kneecap yourself.

SteveW
25-11-2014, 02:01
Steadfast needs to stay solely because removing it makes all cheap infantry worthless.

Shadeseraph
25-11-2014, 02:14
First, where is it written that these units are supposed to tarpit? Second, what's stopping you from putting a character or the BSB in those units to hold the battle line? Third, with Step Up, how are they killing enough for you to NOT strike back and at least limit the amount you lose by? Fourth, if those units are THAT bad, why do you run them in the first place when you have studier stuff? The entire game shouldn't suffer because you choose to kneecap yourself.

First, because they literally have no other role. Too slow to chaff, to vulnerable to serve as character bunker, too weak to rack any kind of kill rate closely similar to their point cost, too easy to bleed CR of to be an anvil.
Second, because you are paying a very heavy tax for each hero you include just to keep a unit in its role.
Third, because with the attributes these guys hold and the attributes most other units have, it's impossible to make them win. In a combined charge as an anvil, they are bound to bleed enough CR against most things to scare the the hammer.
Fourth, because at that point the unit might as well stop existing. You realize -this- rule is what makes them even remotely viable?

Kahadras
25-11-2014, 02:19
Soooo... basically, invalidate gobbs and skavenslaves? Because LD5, stubborn or not, isn't exactly useful for a block that's supposed to tarpit things.

Then again steadfast, leadership 9+, with a reroll is rather good for a unit that doesn't cost a lot of points.

Just Tony
25-11-2014, 02:32
Steadfast needs to stay solely because removing it makes all cheap infantry worthless.

Cheap infantry is worth it because it's cheap. That's the whole point. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.


First, because they literally have no other role. Too slow to chaff, to vulnerable to serve as character bunker, too weak to rack any kind of kill rate closely similar to their point cost, too easy to bleed CR of to be an anvil.
Second, because you are paying a very heavy tax for each hero you include just to keep a unit in its role.
Third, because with the attributes these guys hold and the attributes most other units have, it's impossible to make them win. In a combined charge as an anvil, they are bound to bleed enough CR against most things to scare the the hammer.
Fourth, because at that point the unit might as well stop existing. You realize -this- rule is what makes them even remotely viable?

Ridiculous indecipherable gamer jargon speak gibberish aside, Slaves and Gobbos do what they ARE supposed to do at that cost. Take charge or flee charge, and leave the unit floundering ready for a counter charge next turn. Cheap units are supposed to be the most expendable thing in your army, not the lynchpin of your entire battleline.



Steadfast needs to stay solely because removing it makes all cheap infantry worthless.

Actually, as a caveat, Elite units being FAR too good at killing makes stock infantry worthless. Steadfast is an example of special rules creep at its finest.

SteveW
25-11-2014, 02:36
Steadfast is not a special rule so that is a bogus claim. Its a game mechanic.

As for it being worth it. The point of having a point system is that two different units of similar cost can be just as effective. Cheap infantry do not do that without steadfast.

Maoriboy007
25-11-2014, 02:50
* armies never looked like armies - they looked like checkerboarded cav deployments of min sized cav units Whereas 8th made them look like more of a single amorphous blob with the occasional random satellite. Personally I never found this particular argument to hold much water. Armies I played (or played against) in 7th looked no more or less like the nebulous concept of "actual armies" than they do in 8th, Personally I never left home without a couple of solid (not oversized) infantry blocks regardless of army or edition if I could help it.

* the game became far too dry and predictable in how they played out 8th still has some elements of this problem though, although being simply screwed over by the dice is far easier in this edition.

* static movement led to a lot of arguing over an eighth of an inch.....reality saw a lot of armies running toward each other and then starting to move laterally trying to sucker the other side into stepping forward an eighth of an inch.True enough, I actually like the introduction of random charge distances, although some of the fine details could still be worked out. Being able to agree beforehand on what the required charge distance should be is nice too. But I find the striking in initiative mechanic makes the movement phase way to redundant and in its way , just as static. I see a lot of simply jockeying for position and waiting for the charge, there's no real incentive to charge other than simply to eventually initiating combat when you fell ready, which lacks the same amount of dynamism the 7th mechanic did, if not more.

* the vampire counts and demon books were the icing on the cake for me shelving my armies at that point and doing other things for a few years until 8th came out. Demons were really the only OTT army , DE LM VC & Skaven all boasted pretty sickening power levels, WoC HE Brettonians and Empire had specific builds that were pretty ugly too. As mentioned the army books themselves tended to try and outdo the ones that came before resulting in horrid power creep.


The problem with removing steadfast is that it makes certain units simply pointless in some matchups - not just weak or a bit ineffective but just a way of evaporating victory points.). Is anyone really recommending the removal of steadfast though? As far as I can tell people are just asking that it be toned back a bit, which wouldn't negate the value of steadfast blocks at all as long as you aren't lazy about it or using it as a crutch.
For example, I can see disruption negating steadfast with no real problems.
Small units of cavalry won't cut it as you need to have ranks that can absorb casualties
Getting around a well defended combat line is a lot harder than it used to be
AS long as you defend your flanks at least a little you shouldn't be getting disrupted in the first place

If you are casual about letting fully ranked units smashing into your flanks , then I don't care how steadfast your unit is , it should get screwed over.

Just Tony
25-11-2014, 03:59
Steadfast is not a special rule so that is a bogus claim. Its a game mechanic.

As for it being worth it. The point of having a point system is that two different units of similar cost can be just as effective. Cheap infantry do not do that without steadfast.

Steadfast is a special rule turned game mechanic. Better?

So if infantry is cheap, but not steadfast, and other infantry is the same cost, but not steadfast, what the hell is the differrence? IF you mean taking 300 pts. of Goblins vs. 300 pts. of Marauders, Goblins will have numbers on their side. Add Step Up to that, and you see where Steadfast becomes irrelevant. Now take 300 pts. of whatever elite super killy unit there is. They lack numbers and ranks, the Gobbos still have numbers and ranks, AND Step up. So once again, I don't see where it's an issue.

Tack onto that the fact that I said it'd be okay to stay if you couldn't use it in tandem with the other Ld perks from the General and BSB, and your point becomes even more irrelevant.

SteveW
25-11-2014, 04:05
So compare cheap infantry to cheaper infantry to make your point of cheap infantry still being viable? We call that intellectually dishonest around here.

Gobskrag 'Eadbasha
25-11-2014, 04:07
Not reliable enough to post in the rumors section but here ya go:http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/11/warhammer-fantasy-9th-edition-rumors.html

What do you guys think of this? I can dig combined profiles.

Darnok
25-11-2014, 07:39
Not reliable enough to post in the rumors section but here ya go:http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/11/warhammer-fantasy-9th-edition-rumors.html

What do you guys think of this? I can dig combined profiles.

The usual "educated guesses with some crap added" stuff from Natfka. I.e.: click-bait.

The "Empire in the starter, the enemy is still not determinated" part really gives this away as "we don't actually have a clue" - whatever is in the next starter box has been set in stone years ago, is sculpted and molded already, and most likely already in production. We are talking about a set that will be released less than a year from now. Claiming that its exact contents are "still not determinated" is ridiculous. They just don't have a clue, as usual.

Scammel
25-11-2014, 07:54
Again, plenty of criticism of Steadfast from those who freely admit not actually knowing much about 8th or having played it.

http://www.rankings.baddice.co.uk/army_list/region=3&game=1

You know how Goblins and Slaves are just wrecking the game right now? You know how ridiculous it is that they can hold up certain units? Well, apparently it ain't.

Captain Idaho
25-11-2014, 08:32
I'm just going to throw this out there...

40K had a massive campaign where planets fell, Abaddon was poised to attack Terra and Typhus had a plague empire within Imperial boundaries (so to speak). Eldrad died. Necrons destroyed a Blackstone. Blah blah blah.

Next edition hit and time rewound and it didn't happen.

9th edition Fantasy might very well be the same thing. Just like Archaon a few years ago. The combined lists are special for the End Times I'll wager.

theunwantedbeing
25-11-2014, 09:00
Soooo... basically, invalidate gobbs and skavenslaves? Because LD5, stubborn or not, isn't exactly useful for a block that's supposed to tarpit things.

Put a character in the unit.

N00B
25-11-2014, 10:14
Is anyone really recommending the removal of steadfast though? As far as I can tell people are just asking that it be toned back a bit, which wouldn't negate the value of steadfast blocks at all as long as you aren't lazy about it or using it as a crutch.
For example, I can see disruption negating steadfast with no real problems.
Small units of cavalry won't cut it as you need to have ranks that can absorb casualties
Getting around a well defended combat line is a lot harder than it used to be
AS long as you defend your flanks at least a little you shouldn't be getting disrupted in the first place

If you are casual about letting fully ranked units smashing into your flanks , then I don't care how steadfast your unit is , it should get screwed over.

To make non elite armies work one of two things has to happen. Either you give them a way to win combat against elite units or you ensure that losing combat doesnt have particularly bad consequences. A unit of Night Goblins either has to win/draw combat or test vs leadership 5 without inspiring presence. This is a long way from just being toned down. If you take an army which has weight of numbers as one of its key strengths in the fluff and say that it is no longer a strength you are hitting the army pretty hard.

It is also a little disingenuous to talk about protecting flanks with these armies. Goblins for example have animosity which causes them to break out battle lines and to leave unite out of covering positions. Units deployed wide to cover the flanks get panicked off too easily without the battle-standard/general nearby and big blocks of infantry tend not to be as manoeuvrable as even a 3 rank unit of fast cavalry. Requiring a character to be in the unit for leadership is much worse - they can be picked off if you don't invest heavily in them and if you dont go to lord level you dont need to be that unlucky to be running off.

Now I realise that something needs to be done to counteract the warping effect that marauders, state troops, goblins and gnoblar are having on the game right now and that elite races like elves are struggling to compete but I am not convinced that changing the rules so that some units run away 90% of the time is the solution.

HelloKitty
25-11-2014, 12:53
Whereas 8th made them look like more of a single amorphous blob with the occasional random satellite. Personally I never found this particular argument to hold much water. Armies I played (or played against) in 7th looked no more or less like the nebulous concept of "actual armies" than they do in 8th, Personally I never left home without a couple of solid (not oversized) infantry blocks regardless of army or edition if I could help it.


There is no argument to hold water. It is a perception. You cannot prove a feeling nor can you disprove one. You can in no way shape or form prove or disprove someone's aesthetic preference.

While you may have fielded solid sized infantry units in seventh, the vast majority of people I played against did not. Two or three games a week for years both locally and regionally as well as traveling to Indy gts. The number of non dwarf armies fielding actual decent sized infantry units could be counted on one hand by me in the games I played. That's the main reason I quit for a few years. That and the pair of overpowered army lists running ramshod over everything and one of the last tournaments I attended a dude flipping a table made me rethink why I was in the hobby. But I digress.

The blob phenomenon in 8th is also an example of people playing extremes and did exist in the first year or so of 8th, but thankfully is not so much a thing now.

I many times over prefer the look and feel of the game today than any 7th game.

What is and is not OTT is always a matter of opinion which also cannot be proven or misproven. I found vc to be as heinous and busted as daemons. And at the tourney level where I played all my games they (daemons and VC) made up 7 of 10 armies in nearly every event and practice game I played.

The rest is perception, just not one I agree with. I've yet to have a static and predictable game of 8th once. I had fistfulls in seventh. That's my perception. That's why I quit seventh and got out of the hobby for almost three years and why I am happy with the game today. With everything being static distances etc, most games could be written out like a movie-script from turn one to close after deployment was finished.

Timofeo
25-11-2014, 19:20
8th edition is a fine basis all that needs to be changed is specific things to make your armylist choices not so obvious (Like why not take a Halberd/Great Weapon)

So I will just list things I would do

+ Magic Resistance: Increase enemies spell difficulty by each point/Decrease your own difficulty by each point (For targeting purposes) (For non-targeting things such as a vortex MR would effect it within a certain range perhaps 6" x MR amount)

+ Spears: Gain +1 to Wound when they are charged in the front and are being used on foot

+ Flail: +3 Strength (first round)

+ Morning Star: +2 Strength (first round)

+ Steadfast/Stubborn has a -1 LD modifier when a unit is on your flank, -2 when they are on your rear, and all of it is cumulative so if your unit is surrounded it would suffer -4 LD

+ Horde: No rank bonus

+ Charge: The ability to charge through small units like fast calv/ect so no more blocking a giant unit with a tiny one with 100% success rate. For example a giant unit causes it to panic with a LD -rank bonus of the large unit they fall back and auto rally then the charge continues.

+ Magic: No irresistible force 6's just mean you rolled high, Double 1's is miscast and spell if rolled high enough still goes off however you miscast first and some of the miscast results should say the spell does not go off.

+ No Spells that ignore ward/regen (Unless it has flaming for the regen)

+ Undead BSB's: Work as now in addition max models you can lose from Unstable is 10 and characters are immune to Unstable wounds while BSB is alive

I am sure there is more, but these are just thoughts

Scammel
25-11-2014, 20:21
I don't want to come off as mean here, but the game as it stands is somewhat favourable to deathstars (particularly of the Ogre and Vampiric varieties). If you improved Magic Resistance and Wards/Regen, docked Steadfast and eliminated redirectors, where do you think we might be left in relation to such units? Yes, MR needs to be much more relevant, but these changes together will make some already-great units absolutely dominate.

leopard
25-11-2014, 20:50
Would also like the removal of directing attacks in close combat - have it allocated as per shooting (so the same mechanics for shooting and close combat), your attacks go on the target unit:
- no more character walls with an unkillable unit behind them

Then you retain the challenge mechanic as the only way to focus attacks in close combat - makes champions useful, also stops low initative characters being somewhat pointless.

Then have champions back to what they once were, low level characters who are tied to units - no special rules just for champions, they are characters in every way just with a special rule that they may not leave the initial unit, maybe give them a 25pt magic allowance (or maybe just 10pts)

Ok some hard to kill characters become harder to kill as you can no longer just swamp them - but heros become the last man standing, not the first to fall, while the units around them cannot be prevented from actually fighting

N00B
25-11-2014, 21:17
I don't want to come off as mean here, but the game as it stands is somewhat favourable to deathstars (particularly of the Ogre and Vampiric varieties). If you improved Magic Resistance and Wards/Regen, docked Steadfast and eliminated redirectors, where do you think we might be left in relation to such units? Yes, MR needs to be much more relevant, but these changes together will make some already-great units absolutely dominate.


I agree I think. I see big units as a something that should be an informed and thought through decision in army building, not a no brainer. For this there needs to be a balance of risk and reward - if you remove the risk then of course every game is going to become the same and boring.

Just Tony
26-11-2014, 05:21
So compare cheap infantry to cheaper infantry to make your point of cheap infantry still being viable? We call that intellectually dishonest around here.

...

What?!?!?!

I seriously don't even know what you're getting at.

Lets try this again, in English. 300 points worth of 5 point models will be able to hold out against 300 points of 10 point models because of numbers and ranks, especially with step up. At that point, Steadfast is unnecessary to hold/win in combat, especially if using the General's leadership and the BSB's ability. However, 300 points worth of one of the 15 point model super killy units with two or three attacks per with some magic banner that makes it even more killy will possibly do enough damage to tip the scales against the unit holding. THIS is where Steadfast would be necessary. Or, and this is a crazy idea, tame down the stupid killy units in the army books so it isn't even necessary to put Steadfast in. We on the same page now?

Intellectual dishonesty. What the **** ever...

Scribe of Khorne
26-11-2014, 05:49
While I'm certainly not a fan of "hero-hammer" or any type of game that centers around heroes as the main point of focus in my wargames, I have to say that if it moves more towards this direction that the cost of playing is at least somewhat mitigated by the much lower model-count.

2k of Chaos, cost me tops $300 new, on sprue.

dalezzz
26-11-2014, 07:43
...

What?!?!?!

I seriously don't even know what you're getting at.

Lets try this again, in English. 300 points worth of 5 point models will be able to hold out against 300 points of 10 point models because of numbers and ranks, especially with step up. At that point, Steadfast is unnecessary to hold/win in combat, especially if using the General's leadership and the BSB's ability. However, 300 points worth of one of the 15 point model super killy units with two or three attacks per with some magic banner that makes it even more killy will possibly do enough damage to tip the scales against the unit holding. THIS is where Steadfast would be necessary. Or, and this is a crazy idea, tame down the stupid killy units in the army books so it isn't even necessary to put Steadfast in. We on the same page now?

Intellectual dishonesty. What the **** ever...


If the game gets to a stage where poor units are only loosing by a couple of points on average ( and so don't need steadfast) then this introduces the chance that they might actually win a fight ( I know they might win now but it's massively unlikely) the steadfast complainers are many and are unhappy about not being able to smash these units in one round, can you imagine the **** storm if they actualy got beat once every 6 games :p

Scammel
26-11-2014, 08:02
Lets try this again, in English. 300 points worth of 5 point models will be able to hold out against 300 points of 10 point models because of numbers and ranks, especially with step up. At that point, Steadfast is unnecessary to hold/win in combat, especially if using the General's leadership and the BSB's ability. However, 300 points worth of one of the 15 point model super killy units with two or three attacks per with some magic banner that makes it even more killy will possibly do enough damage to tip the scales against the unit holding. THIS is where Steadfast would be necessary.

See, here's where some actual experience of 8th would be useful. You'd know that 15pt infantry absolutely cream an equal unit of 5pt infantry, there's no question of 'possibly doing enough damage'. Ranks almost never make up for the fact that the typical S3 unit simply isn't going to kill enough to matter.

I repeatedly get this image of a Chaos player bawling that the Goblins are still there after he ploughs his still-untouched Knights into them, the other guy giving him a death glare as he scoops up another massive handful of dudes.

Just Tony
26-11-2014, 14:46
See, here's where some actual experience of 8th would be useful. You'd know that 15pt infantry absolutely cream an equal unit of 5pt infantry, there's no question of 'possibly doing enough damage'. Ranks almost never make up for the fact that the typical S3 unit simply isn't going to kill enough to matter.

I repeatedly get this image of a Chaos player bawling that the Goblins are still there after he ploughs his still-untouched Knights into them, the other guy giving him a death glare as he scoops up another massive handful of dudes.

So basically we're eliminating the psychological effects of combat, which was the driving force behind the last two editions? Got it.

Iron_Lord
26-11-2014, 15:06
Next edition hit and time rewound and it didn't happen.

9th edition Fantasy might very well be the same thing. Just like Archaon a few years ago. The combined lists are special for the End Times I'll wager.
Warhammer had the Storm of Chaos - then had that rewound. It would surprise me if they do this yet again.

From a profiteering perspective - merging lists gives the players of the merged lists, an excuse to buy a lot more models - and justifies a much more expensive armybook.

N00B
26-11-2014, 18:16
If combined army lists become a thing in 9th I could see them being structured such that there are fewer entries but with more options.

Say for example Chaos Legions:

5 core units - Ungor, Gor, Demon, Marauder, Warrior of Chaos...

Upgrades:
Marks/Demon of X special rule (that maps a bare bones demon to a plaguebearer for example)
weapons
Mounts available
Mutations upgrade (maps chaos warriors to forsaken but applies same changes to marauders or Gors)

Possibly some upgrades change the choice to special or rare - say if you buy troops demonic mounts they come out of rare (so you could get a unit of chaos warriors on Palanaquins or Steeds of Slaanesh in your rare choice instead of skullcrushers). Possibly buy the chosen style Eye of the Gods roll as an upgrade etc.) This approach would be risky as the number of combinations could be vast but as long as there are caps (may buy up to two of... or may buy up to 6 pts of upgrades per model) it could be workable.

This would cut down on the space needed in the army books massively whilst at the same time ensuring that everyone could still use their models for something. Not only that but the scope for producing and selling new, flexible kits would potentially be a good source of income.

SteveW
26-11-2014, 19:55
...

What?!?!?!

I seriously don't even know what you're getting at. Didn't mean to confuse you but you use one cheap infantry fighting another cheap infantry as the basis for your claim that cheap infantry would be useful without steadfast.


Lets try this again, in English. 300 points worth of 5 point models will be able to hold out against 300 points of 10 point models because of numbers and ranks, especially with step up. No, that just isn't true, it isn't even close to true. I actually think at this point you've never played a game of warhammer.
At that point, Steadfast is unnecessary to hold/win in combat, especially if using the General's leadership and the BSB's ability. So you get rerollable snake-eyes instead of just snake eyes.
However, 300 points worth of one of the 15 point model super killy units with two or three attacks per with some magic banner that makes it even more killy will possibly do enough damage to tip the scales against the unit holding. THIS is where Steadfast would be necessary. Or, and this is a crazy idea, tame down the stupid killy units in the army books so it isn't even necessary to put Steadfast in. We on the same page now? So take out steadfast and killy units and all the other parts of warhammer? Maybe you should try Kings of war. It's pretty much 7th ed warhammer made stupid easy and almost all the models have similar stats.


Intellectual dishonesty. What the **** ever...Yeah, pretty sure I nailed it with that claim.

Scammel
26-11-2014, 21:57
So basically we're eliminating the psychological effects of combat, which was the driving force behind the last two editions? Got it.

I think we might just ignore the fact that this edition introduced more Ld-based tests, and instead focus on 'combat' in the previous two editions, eg. charge with the cav, mow down the front rank, gg bro. Heaven forbid that combat might actually last a few rounds.


No, that just isn't true, it isn't even close to true. I actually think at this point you've never played a game of warhammer.

What do you mean, 'think'? He's confessed he doesn't play 8th, know the rules, or own the books.

SteveW
26-11-2014, 22:10
I


What do you mean, 'think'? He's confessed he doesn't play 8th, know the rules, or own the books.

Has he? Holy Jebus that explains a lot. It's pretty dumb to harp on a ruleset you don't know.

Just Tony
26-11-2014, 22:47
Yeah, the rules I was walked through by a friend of mine trying to convince me to upgrade/switch/whatever to 8th. What I got from this was:

Explanation of the changes to magic from 7th to 8th
The change from slots to percentages
Random charge range
Premeasuring
Step Up
Steadfast
Volley fire, I believe was something he was addressing as well. At that point I had pretty much given up on it as I had more important things to spend money on. However, I kept up on here with what was going on so I wouldn't get caught flat footed when I wound up getting the rules and playing. I could anticipate whatever the power builds of the month were, whatever go-to item was the benchmark of plan against, that sort of thing. So when I look at the discussions going on currently, I apply what I've learned from Joe, what I read in here, and the changes in dynamics from the previous edition, and apply it to what we think 9th will bring or what we hope 9th will bring. Which brings us to what I was discussin earlier on this page. In 6th to mid 7th, there wasn't mass casualties, and the breaking point was psychology. Step up would have been great at that point, but Steadfast would have been pointless. I said above that if we dialed down the killing power of elite units we wouldn't need Steadfast, and I stand by that because we had two previous editions show us exactly that, AND show us how quickly adding in blender units could imbalance the game, making something like Steadfast necessary. Well, necessary if you just don't remove the killing power of whatever unit swung the balance in the first place.

Scammel
26-11-2014, 22:58
I said above that if we dialed down the killing power of elite units we wouldn't need Steadfast, and I stand by that because we had two previous editions show us exactly that

You can't be serious. The previous editions were dominated by MSU and cavalry and blocks of infantry were even more irrelevant than they are now. Charge - Front rank gone - Win. No point in making a unit of any reasonable size because nothing beyond that front rank matters.

Spiney Norman
26-11-2014, 23:18
Yeah, the rules I was walked through by a friend of mine trying to convince me to upgrade/switch/whatever to 8th. What I got from this was:

Explanation of the changes to magic from 7th to 8th
The change from slots to percentages
Random charge range
Premeasuring
Step Up
Steadfast
Volley fire

You missed the most important advantage 8th has over 7th, balanced army books, I struggle to see how anyone can sing the praises of 7th edition when I remember how broke daemons were and the rampant power race that followed the release of 7E high elves.

Percentages was a stroke of genius, and is something 40k really needs to adopt next edition if they area going to save it from the abyss, random charge ranges and premeasuring is still not something I'm find of, but it does ensure that you don't get a huge benefit from having a good eye for table top distances, which always felt a little bit unfair.

Both step up and steadfast were fantastic additions to the game that made infantry viable for the first time I can remember since I started playing in 5th, volley fire made absolutely no difference to anything.

Katastrophe
26-11-2014, 23:56
I've found that people love 8th or don't. I've played each Ed since 3rd and never define the core rules by the Armybooks, mainly because it depends on when in the edition your book was written and, unfortunately who wrote it. The 7th core rules weren't bad but the Armybooks lacked balance. 8th rules I don't care for but the Armybooks are the most balanced since they took out a lot of options.

I'd likely go with the core mechanics closer to 6/7 with some tweaks to fix a few of the vulnerable spots and use Armybooks from 8th.

To 6/7 to fix a few of the issues I'd allow

1) CR of 6 for static resolution
2) volley fire (if you don't move with bow)
3) shooting in 2 ranks
4) variant of step up allowing 1 rank to step up - if manage to kill 2 ranks you deserve no attacks back
5) a fudge charge die to avoid the charge tango (2x per combat lord w/i 12" 1x per combat hero 6")
6) premeasure

I'm sure there's a couple tweaks to magic I'd make but not looking at the book

Just Tony
27-11-2014, 00:11
You can't be serious. The previous editions were dominated by MSU and cavalry and blocks of infantry were even more irrelevant than they are now. Charge - Front rank gone - Win. No point in making a unit of any reasonable size because nothing beyond that front rank matters.

We didn't have that where I played. Almost everyone who played ran bare minimum 20 man in each infantry regiment. Cav was usually 5 man, and some, like me, ran 10 or more depending on points. In 6th you could accept a charge, even from cavalry, and using a combo of BSB and General hold the line. The charging unit then was stuck with no charging bonuses, and would break to combat res. Hell, some times we would get charged, do far fewer wounds, then win combat through res. Sounds like your meta was just full of people who were trying their best to pay the least per regiment as possible. It wasn't until Dark Elves in 7th that MSUs could kill enough to be viable.

inquisitorsz
27-11-2014, 00:19
Look, realistically steadfast is fine in most cases. It's the extremes where it becomes completely broken

the fact that 50 skaven slaves which is 10 ranks of 5 and 100pts can hold up 600pts of a deathstar unit for 2-3 turns is absurd.
Are deathstar units stupidly powerful and broken too? Sure. You could argue that huge units of cheap infantry is a direct counter for a deathstar unit.
The problem is when you don't have a deathstar unit and the opponent does have slaves (as every single skaven army simply MUST do).

Now you have 300-400 point units of not completely broken elite troops which can't possibly beat that many slaves.

25 wood elf eternal guard is 330 pts (which is quite a big unit for elf infantry). There is no way this unit will ever beat 100pts of slaves. They simply don't get enough attacks even with spell buffs.

Obviously this stuff is looked at in a vacuum and you could kill slaves with shooting and magic, but even then, you're using expensive elf shooting and magic to kill 2pt models.

Steadfast was a rubbish rule brought in as a direct counter for monsters, cavalry and deathstar units (eg witch elves + cauldron). But because of the wide range of things that steadfast defends against, they became far too powerful. not only do they counter the stuff listed above, but also almost every other "normal" unit.
You have to expend a stupid amount of effort to kill 100pts of skaven slaves. Avoiding the tarpit unit is pretty much the only viable tactic if you don't have a cheap tarpit of your own. Swarms counter slaves pretty well but some swarms can be quite expensive too.

A simple change like removing steadfast if a unit is disrupted would probably be enough to balance it out. I most cases it would still work, and is special cases you can use your tactical genius to defeat the otherwise almost unkillable tarpit.

I used wood elves and skaven as examples above because that's the armies I collect but there's plenty of other things that apply. Zombies and goblins for example.

forseer of fates
27-11-2014, 00:40
Steadfast is amazing, to be fair, I think stomp was supposed to be what monsters got instead of and it has not really worked out as well as it should, spears and flails need something.

Maoriboy007
27-11-2014, 01:05
It is also a little disingenuous to talk about protecting flanks with these armies. Goblins for example have animosity which causes them to break out battle lines and to leave unite out of covering positions. Units deployed wide to cover the flanks get panicked off too easily without the battle-standard/general nearby and big blocks of infantry tend not to be as manoeuvrable as even a 3 rank unit of fast cavalry. Requiring a character to be in the unit for leadership is much worse - they can be picked off if you don't invest heavily in them and if you dont go to lord level you dont need to be that unlucky to be running off..I don't think its disingenuous at all, both players should technically have equal resources (I.e points and units) to attack and defend each others flanks (including panicking the proposed disrupting units). Remember, I'm not talking about simply flanking , I'm talking disruption . A sensible sized ranked unit actually making it around into the units flank with sufficient numbers and winning combat. That's actually a lot harder to do than it sounds. Without a coordinated double charge it can be simply countered by a reform. Charge arcs are a lot broader now , so its harder to get around the front of the battle line. You have to avoid other units to hit the target, and arrive with the right numbers, and still have them at the end of the combat. That requires a lot of effort and skill and should be rewarded as such. You could probably have skirmishers and Fast cav unable to cause disruption to balance their manoeuvrability and that would probably be fine.
As for Animosity, that's a problem with animosity not steadfast, . I guess its supposed to be both a strength and a weakness like frenzy is, and I'll admit I've never been sold on it myself (though hardcore OnG players take a peverse delight in it , go figure :) ), but like frenzy you go in knowing what it does and are supposed to plan around it, you take the good with the bad. You protect your flaks with the abundance of chep chaff. Instead of a unit with 100 goblins , take 2 units of 50.


Now I realise that something needs to be done to counteract the warping effect that marauders, state troops, goblins and gnoblar are having on the game right now and that elite races like elves are struggling to compete but I am not convinced that changing the rules so that some units run away 90% of the time is the solution.That's not what would happen at all, your goal would be simply to coordinate your army so that you take that charge to the front and don't casually expose yourself to counterattack, rather than hurl a massive unit forward and simply dare your opponent to "charge me b!*&h"


There is no argument to hold water. It is a perception. You cannot prove a feeling nor can you disprove one. You can in no way shape or form prove or disprove someone's aesthetic preference.I suppose , although the same could apply to your own statements. The phrase "armies look like armies now" is oft repeated, and whether it is an opinion or a perception I don't agree that its better or worse than 7th in this regard, just different.


While you may have fielded solid sized infantry units in seventh, the vast majority of people I played against did not. Two or three games a week for years both locally and regionally as well as traveling to Indy gts. The number of non dwarf armies fielding actual decent sized infantry units could be counted on one hand by me in the games I played. That's the main reason I quit for a few years. That and the pair of overpowered army lists running ramshod over everything and one of the last tournaments I attended a dude flipping a table made me rethink why I was in the hobby. But I digress. Again fair enough, but that sounds more like a problem with the meta to me which had way more to do with the army books meta affects every edition really, and a fair number of people took a break from 8th as well for better or for worse. For any dissatisfaction I might have Im interested enough in EoT to possibly stick it out until 9th.

The blob phenomenon in 8th is also an example of people playing extremes and did exist in the first year or so of 8th, but thankfully is not so much a thing now.Is that a perception? :) Still, like I said that could just be the Meta of the army books, mega-deathstars still tend to be a phenomenon, in my opinion, perception? Drat...

I many times over prefer the look and feel of the game today than any 7th game. And that's fair enough, personally I'd just like to broaden it so that more people enjoy 8th as well, a few not over the top changes might bring back some 7th edition players and maintain the current player base as well.

What is and is not OTT is always a matter of opinion which also cannot be proven or misproven. I found vc to be as heinous and busted as daemons. And at the tourney level where I played all my games they (daemons and VC) made up 7 of 10 armies in nearly every event and practice game I played. Again, whether this be opinion, perception or meta seems debatable. In pretty much any competitive environment players tended to take demons, usually with Kairos. The rest were all lesser powered but equally sickening shenanigans Pendant Lord Hotek Black Guard, Slann Skink Clouds, Teclis, VC Invo Spam. Gateway FTW etc. I think VC stood out because they were the first army to start the power creep. Subsequent books tended to try and one-up the last. I never saw demons lose in our group in 7th regardless of who played them, only DE ever came close.
I'm sorry but in my experience, no one came out a saint in that mess, If you had a broken build (and most did) you played it with the army you had on hand, and that hasn't changed much. I have found that I play less armies in this edition than I used to though. I favoured both undead but played Empire, LM , Ogres and occasionally WE.

The rest is perception, just not one I agree with. I've yet to have a static and predictable game of 8th once. I had fistfulls in seventh. That's my perception. That's why I quit seventh and got out of the hobby for almost three years and why I am happy with the game today. With everything being static distances etc, most games could be written out like a movie-script from turn one to close after deployment was finished. I pretty much know what the manoeuvring and steps are going to be in most games in 8th as well. Its merely the results, which are either going to be so random as to be simply deciding the game according to the dice gods or so stacked in one direction as to make the results a near certainty regardless of the rub of a die.

HelloKitty
27-11-2014, 01:14
Different perceptions *shrug* I've had a fun time with 8th and am glad it turned out how it did.

Brother Haephestus
27-11-2014, 02:02
This is what I fear most for 9th (other than complete unbound). Armies mashed together destroys the balance and subtle strengths and weaknesses of each army. If someone really wants to combine units from 2 armies they can do it now - just get opponents permission. It doesn't need to be officially incorporated into the rules.

I don't think it is nearly as bad as you put it, and I think we're going to be just fine. Tournaments, where balance most matters, are already comping armies. What makes you think the same won't continue? That being said ...



203734

No. No they can't. They can't because we've let the tournament players, the RAW vs RAI, take over the game. We even turn around and argue with GW about the rules that they wrote: they're incomplete, they're not specific enough, what were you guys smoking when you wrote this?

After all these years we can finally officially take FW models in our armies. Do you see that? "Officially." GW had to come out and literally tell you to your face that yes, FW products, made by a Citadel subsidiary company, is game-legal. In fact, instead of us players figuring out for ourselves how to deal with and incorporate super-heavies, most people refused to allow them in game until GW released Apocalypse, and then only in Apoc-specific games. It wasn't until Escalation and the introduction of Lords of War units that we finally got to play with our most expensive toys.

So. Here we are. We now have the inverse. The game you described above, the one we were supposed to be playing all along but weren't allowed to because it wasn't "official" now is. We never needed the GW Inquisition to step into our game rooms and demand we play the game X way because we DID IT TO OURSELVES. Now the inverse is true; the flood gates have been opened, and if you want a balanced game you are going to have to ASK for it, instead of DEMANDING it.

By the way, there will be some elements of concern (Special Repeater Bolt Throwers and Rare Eagle Claw Bolt Throwers), but most units are actually pretty similar and limitations are still going to be limitations. Do I take a Hydra, a Phoenix or a Treeman? Do I take Dryads or Witch Elves? Do I take Glade Riders, Dark Riders or Ellyrian Reavers? Yes, there will be small tweeks but generally speaking it isn't the army units, it is who is leading the army that is most problematic. In the end it is going to be exactly like Chaos is now. Do I go mixed army, or do I go mono god? It is definitely going to shake up tournament, but lets be real. We whine and complain every single book release (save Tomb Kings, and even then a little bit too) and how X Army is OP, or that X Army that still needs an update is OP, etc. etc. etc. I find more options a good thing, especially after having chosen to play dwarfs. Oh, to be able to go all-cav, or all-spears, or all shooty instead of just gunline or full on Vanguard.

May god have mercy on your soul, if it is right that He should do so. Welcome to the new world.

Maoriboy007
27-11-2014, 02:56
Different perceptions *shrug* I've had a fun time with 8th and am glad it turned out how it did.Fair enough, maybe we'll both like 9th :)

. We even turn around and argue with GW about the rules that they wrote: they're incomplete, they're not specific enough, what were you guys smoking when you wrote this?
:)

Darnok
27-11-2014, 06:40
If people could return to the thread topic - which is 9th edition, not 6th/7th/8th - that would be awesome.


Darnok [=I=]

Col. Tartleton
27-11-2014, 08:07
Warhammer should at least have rock-paper-scissors elements. As sharp as your scissor unit is, it can't cut through a huge rock. If I have a hundred skaven slaves in a ten by ten block and you charge at them with a thousand point death star what do you hope to accomplish? The only thing you can hope to do is break their morale and if its a front to front shoving match and my skaven feel like standing and fighting you're in trouble and you should be. You aren't going to wipe them out. The whole point of these chaff hordes is to bog down the elite enemy units with expendable units.

How do you kill huge blocks of crap infantry? Psychology, maneuver, or artillery/magic.

For skaven throwing hundreds of slaves at the enemy and then shooting them both to shreds is the go to Clan Skryre style game plan.

Brother Haephestus
27-11-2014, 15:29
Okay, so, 9th edition thoughts:

To be honest, how ET is setting up has me so confused about what 9th is going to look like that I have no idea. Skirmish/LOTR-style seemed so logical six months ago and today I can only sit here and go "Wha???"

Overall however, I'm not too terribly worried about where we are going. What I see developing is a system that grants more options. Tournament players are probably having kittens, but these are the same folk that field such gutter trash that I want to take them behind a building and beat them. However, for my home games, I see so many options blending together, and I see perhaps a future where figures are more cost-efficient for me. What do I mean about that?

In 40K, a box of Space Marines can be used across so many armies it is ridiculous. Being able to do that here - purchase a box of figures and have it work for a Tomb Kings army OR a Legions of Undeath army makes me feel good. Being able to take a unit of Glade Riders in a Wood Elves army, or one of the newer army lists, makes me feel good. I don't have to dedicate to a new army to paint a figure that releases that is appealing to me: depending on its overall background theme (Undead, Chaos, Elves, etc) a new unit can probably now be used in my army. I like this. I can go "Dark Elves pure" or I can go "Elves Undivided". I can even do things to unite my color scheme, and yet still have distinctive units, or I can maintain distinct different pallets.

I don't know where we're going. I don't know where we are going to end up. However, figures-to-armies wise? I'm liking what I am seeing! What is happening is very good for me and my approach to the hobby.

Sorry Colonel - I couldnt resist. I'm going to go to hell for this, aren't I??


SETTRA DOES NOT SERVE, SETTRA GETS SERVED!

203750

Katastrophe
27-11-2014, 15:39
I still think GW is going to totally invalidate current armies in 9th, but I'be been told that is not possible. Or maybe that'll be what happens for 10th since it'll be like historic. They can call it Warhammer X.

Col. Tartleton
27-11-2014, 17:21
They can't do that, that's my working title for my fan edition... :D

@ Brother Hephaestus: SETTRA HAS HAD WORSE. COME AT SETTRA!