PDA

View Full Version : A new beginning? (9th)



Desildore
13-03-2015, 00:13
Got some (hopefully) positive information regarding 9th edition.

This info come from a GW related source. What do they know, right? I am just repeating what I have heard.
So take this with a pinch of salt as usual. First off, possible release at the end of June/early July. Nothing new here.

Now, on how 9th edition will work. 9th edition won’t be one game as we know Warhammer now. There will be three
different playstyles. GW wants to add some of the elements that have made 40K so popular. Think kill-team, formations
and so forth. With the hope of fantasy becoming more popular. And the game will be played in three different time sets:
Pre-apocalypse, apocalypse and finally post-apocalypse.

The first part Post-apocalypse as in after The end times will be the skirmish part that we have heard of with round bases.
And with merged armies. This will be a small game. Think of it as a friendly start for anyone who has not played Warhammer
before. It will be fast (and easy) to play, cheaper because you need fewer miniatures (A couple of heroes, two five man units,
one monster and maybe some cavalry for example) and more dynamic. This will hopefully be a fun way to start, you don’t have
to spend loads of $$$ and paint a hundred miniatures.

The second part, Apocalypse will be The end times. Straight up with some 9th edition updates.

And lastly there will be the Warhammer we all know and love. Pre-apocalypse. This is the complicated game with lots of rules and
big armies. The rules won’t be 8th edition but close enough. You can call it a usual edition update.

This approach is for GW to broaden their customer circle. As it is now Warhammer is a hard game to just “dive into”. As mentioned
above it has loads of rules, is very expensive and requires lots and lots of miniatures. So the fresh start of Warhammer will be more
intro friendly. So this is GW’s attempt to make everyone happy. Because after all they don’t “want” to lose their current and very
loyal customers. May it be a painter or a gamer, or both!

And that is why the old Warhammer structure will live on as well. And your current armybooks will be more or less usable in 9th but
the new books will be with merged armies as I mentioned above. But how and when the books will be updated (or even IF there will
be updates) there was no mention of.

This is a smart move from GW (for once). Hopefully there will be many new players. And old veterans who already have armies will
likely get tempted to buy a small skirmish force with that cool looking faction you never started because you couldn’t afford/wanted
an entire army with. Win/win! And as mentioned in various threads yhe starter box will be (Super?)Humans VS Chaos(Khorne?)

Sounds very promising if true. As I said. Take with a pinch of salt.

Thank you for looking!

General_Vega
13-03-2015, 00:40
If true would make pick up gaming even more impossible with people showing up with armies for different subsystems that aren't compatible.

logan054
13-03-2015, 00:45
You mean more possible than if you army was squated and no longer support. I'd be very happy with this if it was true, this unbound stuff in the next End Times book is what really concerns me tbh.

HelloKitty
13-03-2015, 00:56
I'm ready to see whats in store for us. I fully expect it to mirror 40k with unbound, allied detachments, etc... but those things can be circumvented by simply requesting games or participating in events that don't go silly with them.

SuperHappyTime
13-03-2015, 01:23
And lastly there will be the Warhammer we all know and love. Pre-apocalypse. This is the complicated game with lots of rules and
big armies. The rules won’t be 8th edition but close enough. You can call it a usual edition update.

Thanks for the white crystal. Whether it's sugar, salt, or crack we'll find out in the coming months ;).

On what I quoted though, why do I get this weird feeling they were quite gun-ho on the full skirmish and community reaction may have saved WFB as we know and love it?

Smithpod68
13-03-2015, 01:24
I hope this is true. Would be a welcome addition to the game. Reminds of the 6th ed book that had siege,skirmish,and regular rules.

deathrain-commander
13-03-2015, 04:23
THIS...
...
...
I could actually get 100 percent on board with. Like, if this the form Fantasy takes post End Times, I will be ecstatic.

warriorpoet1
13-03-2015, 05:46
If the three games thing is true, I'd be alright with that, and actually kinda look forward to it. I don't know how GW would pull it off though...

Spiney Norman
13-03-2015, 09:31
Wouldn't inventing a skirmish version of the game designed to draw people in with smaller sized armies and fewer modeled required completely fail at being a gateway game if the models and factions were totally incompatible with the larger version of the game? It really makes no sense to put the skirmish game on round bases unless you deliberately want models for the skirmish game to be incompatible with the mass-battle version.

This is an interesting rumour but a few things strike me about it, 1. It solves none of the problems that are causing wfb to sell badly, 2. It doesn't meet the apparent objective of reducing the size of the wfb line if the mass battle version of the game is going to continue with all its current factions, 3. It reads like someone is intentionally trying to refute/play down the rumours we have heard so far.

Kyriakin
13-03-2015, 10:30
So..:

Pre-ET - Basically 8th
ET - Mental
Post-ET - Entry-level

I once had an idea that they might do this - albeit with "pre-" and "post-" only - but still don't know what this means in terms of the miniature range and potential dumping the old moulds, etc.

Personally, I'd sell production of the old range to third parties who can churn them out on a smaller scale on a "per order" basis. Sure, on the surface it might seem like it would cannibalize 9th sales, but the sort of people buying such stuff probably weren't 9th's target market anyway. Plus, keeping them somewhat happy may mean they don't create a bad air around the hobby.

How do the Chinese recasters pull this off to an acceptable standard? I'm guessing they don't store hundreds of huge moulds and thousands of miniatures inside warehouses. Their 30-day-ish delivery times suggest the miniatures are made to-order.

Either way - if these rumours are true - this seems like it might be a great compromise overall, despite it fracturing an already (apparently) under-sized pool of players. Maybe they hope for fresh blood in "post-" and assume that the grognards will mostly stay "pre-".

I can't see many "ET" games happening going forward, though. Perhaps in a team game, multiple players might be able to provide the miniatures required for all the crazy combinations, but I can't see many people buying such armies outright.

theJ
13-03-2015, 10:45
If true, I shall be very happy indeed... I might even give their new skirmish thingy a try(assuming it doesn't suck, obviously).

However....

Wouldn't inventing a skirmish version of the game designed to draw people in with smaller sized armies and fewer modeled required completely fail at being a gateway game if the models and factions were totally incompatible with the larger version of the game? It really makes no sense to put the skirmish game on round bases unless you deliberately want models for the skirmish game to be incompatible with the mass-battle version.

This is an interesting rumour but a few things strike me about it, 1. It solves none of the problems that are causing wfb to sell badly, 2. It doesn't meet the apparent objective of reducing the size of the wfb line if the mass battle version of the game is going to continue with all its current factions, 3. It reads like someone is intentionally trying to refute/play down the rumours we have heard so far.

So yeah... colour me skeptical.
There is the possibility that this is really closer to the 30k dealie that cropped up over in 40k recently - a completely separate gaming system set in a different timeframe of a familiar setting.
Kinda sensible, when you think about it;
-Since the two games are separate, people are encouraged to buy new armies, thus netting GW $$$. This is done at the expense of the current gaming system, but the current system is most likely going to be regarded as a "secondary" system from now on; we'll likely get sporadic smaller releases, but not be overly focused on - remember the LotR era?
-Since the old stuff doesn't get dropped, people don't get pissed, and people are more likely to give GWs new skirmish thingie a chance, since they won't be staying away on principle.
-Since WHFB wouldn't get fully dropped, it'd be easier to refocus on it if/when they decide to give it another shot, be it because of newfound inspiration or because the bubbles fail.

It's also quite possible this is a "new"(yes, yes, GW moves slowly...) development - fantasy has only been picking up more and more speed as 8th has moved on, and I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere along the way, someone asked themselves "huh... fantasy is actually selling like hotcakes all of a sudden. y'know... there's nothing saying we HAVE to drop it just cus' we built this new thing, right?"

Downsides? Well, apparantly storage is supposed to be a big issue(somehow), and I guess a lot of people will be pissed when they realize the other systems get more attention than us... but let's be honest here, those are fairly minor issues, all things considered.

Time will tell.

Pazuzu
13-03-2015, 10:47
Wouldn't inventing a skirmish version of the game designed to draw people in with smaller sized armies and fewer modeled required completely fail at being a gateway game if the models and factions were totally incompatible with the larger version of the game? It really makes no sense to put the skirmish game on round bases unless you deliberately want models for the skirmish game to be incompatible with the mass-battle version.

This is an interesting rumour but a few things strike me about it, 1. It solves none of the problems that are causing wfb to sell badly, 2. It doesn't meet the apparent objective of reducing the size of the wfb line if the mass battle version of the game is going to continue with all its current factions, 3. It reads like someone is intentionally trying to refute/play down the rumours we have heard so far.

It sound like an organised rumour to avoid panic with the official release of Archaon tomorrow ^^

StygianBeach
13-03-2015, 11:07
Wouldn't inventing a skirmish version of the game designed to draw people in with smaller sized armies and fewer modeled required completely fail at being a gateway game if the models and factions were totally incompatible with the larger version of the game? It really makes no sense to put the skirmish game on round bases unless you deliberately want models for the skirmish game to be incompatible with the mass-battle version.

This is an interesting rumour but a few things strike me about it, 1. It solves none of the problems that are causing wfb to sell badly, 2. It doesn't meet the apparent objective of reducing the size of the wfb line if the mass battle version of the game is going to continue with all its current factions, 3. It reads like someone is intentionally trying to refute/play down the rumours we have heard so far.

If characters are moved to round bases but units are kept on square bases for pre-end times it could work.

I think getting people invested in the universe is the most important part.

Zbrojny
13-03-2015, 11:08
People jump to extremes too fast.. they read "playstyles", they think "separate games".

What I think is, there's gonna be no "new world", just some poor explanation on how the Realm of Chaos wraps time around itself and countless possibilities of the events preceding the End unfold themselves just to be replayed again and again and again and again... each time can be different, each time it has no meaning, because the causality principle went down the drain. If they feel like giving people some hope of better tomorrow, they might throw in a part about how Lileath drifts from one "possibility bubble" to another hoping to find one that can be steered into the End not happening.

This would provide a neat explanation of how we play with all those named characters and let them die over and over again - different "possibility bubble", "what would happen if Tyrion killed Malakith", "what would happen if Karl Franz never became the Emperor", etc. Obviously, the End is inevitable, but only us, the players (and possibly Lileath :)) know this - the miniatures we use are blissfully unaware that their fate is sealed.

That's fluff wise.

Game wise, I think it's still gonna be a single game, but designed with several "playmodes" in mind. So probably:
- a core set of rules (for a skirmish game - note that skirmish means small scale here, not that all units run around in skirmish formation - I think close to "Border Patrol" (http://www.danleeonline.com/attachments/File/Warhammer/Border_Patrol_Scenario.pdf) style game, but allowing the "unbound" armies)
- advanced rules, expanding on the core to create the kind of Warhammer game we know and hate (well I would say "love" but... just read the forums. Any forums).

Now I do think there's gonna be a lot of changes in army composition rules. I would imagine something like this:
- there are several "major" forces, say Order (Elves, Humans, Dwarfs, possibly Lizardmen?), Destruction (Orks, Goblins, Ogres), Death (Undead of all shapes and sizes), Chaos (warriors, daemons, beasts) and... well... Scaven (unless they fall into Chaos). You will be able to make an army based on all miniatures of a force, but there will be "formations" promoting "single type" army styles by adding extra rules - similar to 40k. This allows for creation of supplements, and adding random minis at any time, while extending the target range of each new miniature (because as an Order player, even if I favor dwarfs, I'm more likely to buy a cool looking - or overpowered - elven unit if I can field it).
- it might be that the army composition rules will go down the drain (as they seem to have in End Times 5), but the "formations" I described above will play their role (the bonuses for following a formation scheme will be strong enough to compete with "10 organ gun line" or "3 Bloodthirsters" armies).

And as for round bases... based on rumors I found here on this forum, I think:
- regiments will stay rank&file square
- rules will be adjusted so that base size doesn't matter for skirmish/single models
- rules for characters joining units will change (the character won't take space of a rank&file, the miniature will be ok to stand somewhere around the unit as long as it's clear that it's with it). This in turn will change the rules for choosing who can attack whom, likely that template weapons/spells mechanics will change a lot (or even disappear entirely)

This is possibly purely due to modeling reasons, allows for bigger/cooler posed characters and big models to be designed. For us players, it simplifies roster creation a bit (you take and field 30 spearmen, not 27 because you know there's gonna be 3 heroes there), and opens up new modelling/conversion possibilities (heroes as proxies within units - think Dwarf lord on shieldbearers - there need be no rules for shieldbearers altogether, just a model you made so it looks cool attached to your unit. Or an elven mage on 40x40 base surrounded by Swordmaster bodyguards. Or just a very cool pose for your battle standard bearer that you didn't do before because you knew he wouldn't rank up properly).

Now note, this is not rumors, just speculation. And sadly, it's more what I hope will happen than what I think will.

CrystalSphere
13-03-2015, 11:08
So you expect GW to start supporting 3 different games (rules wise & models wise) instead of just one? I think we´ll see the timeline go forward, a new IP being developed and the old minis will progressively become useless as things advance. GW is not going to keep publishing rules and models for a game system (pre-apocalypse in your post) that only a handful of veterans use- Tjey wamt you to buy new models and not just hoard on your stuff for years, so it makes sense that they will push their new IP and models, and the old ones will become obsolete - eventually. Sure you can still play them with your friends, but it´s like 5th edition rules or wood elf chariots: they didn´t go anywhere, but no official endorsement made it much harder to actually play with them.

Captain Idaho
13-03-2015, 12:00
It's funny how people are sceptical about a rumour that is positive and actually explains how the game won't die etc, yet they believe without question the doom and gloom rumours...

I was calling this from the start. Were GW really going to destroy their IP, replace the model line (prohibitively expensive) and replace their player base?

40K started to branch out into different ways to play in the core rulebook. We have precedent of small scale games included in the past and have Apocalypse too. It makes perfect sense GW will go this route with Fantasy.

Now, the main questions are; how are GW going to update armies and add to the model lines etc in the future? Will we see models released for both the smaller scale, skirmish level separate to the rest of the game? Seems unlikely.

Kyriakin
13-03-2015, 12:08
It's funny how people are sceptical about a rumour that is positive and actually explains how the game won't die etc, yet they believe without question the doom and gloom rumours...
Well, to be fair, the OP has a post count of 3 and no history of rumours that eventually come to pass.

Still like the idea though.

Captain Idaho
13-03-2015, 12:11
Judge not those by their post count, but the content of their posts.

Desildore
13-03-2015, 12:47
Three posts because you got to have two posts to be able to start a new thread :p I have been a part of the Warseer community for years.
And I am not some kind of rumour mongler of any kind. This is just something that was passed along that I wanted to share with you guys.
The source was GW after all so it might be a false message to "avoid panic" before the Archaon release and that why you take all this with a
pinch of salt :) Or truckloads if you are sceptical.

jtrowell
13-03-2015, 14:40
When you say that your source is GW, do you mean just some staffer or maybe store manager ? Because those are usually not more informed about the future release that we are and at best just read the rumour forums like us, so many new "someone at GW confirmed this rumour" are often just a case of rumour (or whislist) reverberation.

Or is your source someone working not in a store but at GW HQ or something like that ?

Phantom Lord
13-03-2015, 14:49
This is an interesting rumour but a few things strike me about it, 1. It solves none of the problems that are causing wfb to sell badly, 2. It doesn't meet the apparent objective of reducing the size of the wfb line if the mass battle version of the game is going to continue with all its current factions, 3. It reads like someone is intentionally trying to refute/play down the rumours we have heard so far.

1) yes it does. Smaller and faster games = less units = less money to spend. Even if those new players don't invest in big units and new armies, GW still gets money
2) still a rumour
3) maybe

Desildore
13-03-2015, 14:49
It was a store manager. He/She said that they had an information conference (the managers) where this info came up and he/she had also spoken
to some people att GW Nottingham about this aswell.

HelloKitty
13-03-2015, 15:02
skirmish games, low model count, and super fast games are the era we live in. As much as it breaks my heart, its a smart idea to move to financially.

Spiney Norman
13-03-2015, 15:06
Judge not those by their post count, but the content of their posts.

So because it is positive we should believe it? At the end of the day Harry is worried by what he has heard, and this is from Mr BRING IT ON!!! He is talking about one or more armies being discontinued and sweeping changes to the background, by virtue of his accuracy record any rumour that directly contradicts what he has said is going to illicit a certain degree of skepticism.


1) yes it does. Smaller and faster games = less units = less money to spend. Even if those new players don't invest in big units and new armies, GW still gets money
2) still a rumour
3) maybe

It doesn't make mass-battle wfb any more accessible than it is now because there won't be any cross over of models, it doesn't reduce the size of the line, in fact it adds more models to it, and GW have already presided over the demise of one fantasy themed skirmish game, what makes anyone think they will do a better job of this one? Really all they are doing is launching a new game without any attempt to fix the alleged problems causing poor sales in wfb.


It was a store manager. He/She said that they had an information conference (the managers) where this info came up and he/she had also spoken
to some people att GW Nottingham about this aswell.

As a rule managers don't leak information about future releases even if they have any out of fear for their job, if this has come from a GW store manager it's probably more in the way of propaganda to limit the damage done by Darnok & Harry's rumour leaks than actual info about a future release, but we shall see.

Kyriakin
13-03-2015, 15:16
skirmish games, low model count, and super fast games are the era we live in. As much as it breaks my heart, its a smart idea to move to financially.
I would be surprised if there isn't the genesis of some kind of pre-painted option at GW within the next few years too.

Spiney Norman
13-03-2015, 15:30
I would be surprised if there isn't the genesis of some kind of pre-painted option at GW within the next few years too.

I can't really think of anything that would be more destructive to their success as a business than moving over to pre-painted models, so it is probably slated for early 2016, it would certainly by the fastest way to alienate their entire veteran customer base, everyone I game with takes immense pride in painting their own armies and would not be interested in a prepainted game.

Logically I think their paint range is too profitable and important to them to ditch it in favour of prepaints, but given that they wouldn't need to employ studio painters/'eavy metal it might be more of a cost saving that I realise.

A slightly larger issue is that I think GW has now made too many mistakes to expect customers to remain loyal to a product line just because it has the company name on it.

Kyriakin
13-03-2015, 15:48
I dunno, it just seemed to fit the new "buy-and-play" landscape.

X-wing is destroying everything around here.

SuperHappyTime
13-03-2015, 16:02
I can't really think of anything that would be more destructive to their success as a business than moving over to pre-painted models, so it is probably slated for early 2016, it would certainly by the fastest way to alienate their entire veteran customer base, everyone I game with takes immense pride in painting their own armies and would not be interested in a prepainted game.

Logically I think their paint range is too profitable and important to them to ditch it in favour of prepaints, but given that they wouldn't need to employ studio painters/'eavy metal it might be more of a cost saving that I realise.

A slightly larger issue is that I think GW has now made too many mistakes to expect customers to remain loyal to a product line just because it has the company name on it.

Personally, I think they need to have pre-painted figures, but just for the starter box. Or include paints, glue, etc. with it.

HelloKitty
13-03-2015, 16:18
I know a ton of players that would snap up pre painted warhammer models because they have no desire to paint and no desire to have to pay someone to paint their models (or even assemble them).

I think pre painted pre assembled models would sell very well.

Spiney Norman
13-03-2015, 16:21
I dunno, it just seemed to fit the new "buy-and-play" landscape.

X-wing is destroying everything around here.

Interesting, Star Trek Attack wing is actually more popular where I live, partly because it is Star Trek themed and partly because the prepaints are so bad you feel obligated to redo them yourself which allows you to personalise your fleet a lot more.


I know a ton of players that would snap up pre painted warhammer models because they have no desire to paint and no desire to have to pay someone to paint their models (or even assemble them).

I think pre painted pre assembled models would sell very well.

But at the expense of people who like to paint their own models? Ok I guess you can always paint over a prepainted model, but there is always a massive loss of detail when you do that (my STAW experience talking there). It seems to me that moving their models over to a prepainted game would be a massive middle finger to their hobbyists.

IMHO this is not at all the direction GW is currently going in, they are moving away from the gaming side of the hobby and moree to the collectors/hobbiests side, doing something which obliterates the painting side of the hobby and makes all their models everywhere look identicle seems like it wouldn't fit that objective at all. Prepainted are for pandering to the lazy gamers who don't want to engage in the hobby, GW hasn't done that for a very long time.

Also, prepainted multi-part models, could that actually be a thing, or would we be back to the dark days of everything in the same pose?

Speaking for myself I would not buy another GW product if they moved to prepaints, I don't get to play very often as it is, and most of the value I derive from their products is from painting them and personalising them as my own army, it would also remove that magical moment when you both put your armies on the table and spend several minutes admiring how your opponent has painted their models.

SuperHappyTime
13-03-2015, 16:44
Interesting, Star Trek Attack wing is actually more popular where I live, partly because it is Star Trek themed and partly because the prepaints are so bad you feel obligated to redo them yourself which allows you to personalise your fleet a lot more.



But at the expense of people who like to paint their own models? Ok I guess you can always paint over a prepainted model, but there is always a massive loss of detail when you do that (my STAW experience talking there). It seems to me that moving their models over to a prepainted game would be a massive middle finger to their hobbyists.

IMHO this is not at all the direction GW is currently going in, they are moving away from the gaming side of the hobby and moree to the collectors/hobbiests side, doing something which obliterates the painting side of the hobby and makes all their models everywhere look identicle seems like it wouldn't fit that objective at all. Prepainted are for pandering to the lazy gamers who don't want to engage in the hobby, GW hasn't done that for a very long time.

Also, prepainted multi-part models, could that actually be a thing, or would we be back to the dark days of everything in the same pose?

Speaking for myself I would not buy another GW product if they moved to prepaints, I don't get to play very often as it is, and most of the value I derive from their products is from painting them and personalising them as my own army, it would also remove that magical moment when you both put your armies on the table and spend several minutes admiring how your opponent has painted their models.

If they had an option for pre-paints or self-paints, I think everyone would be happy. There are lots of people who don't play because they have to paint, but I do notice a lot of people walk into a store just to buy models to paint and glue. Really, GW might benefit in the US by not building stores and getting Hobby Lobby or Michaels to carry their product.

EAP: And yes, I'm aware the major capital cost that would be associated with either strategy.

Spiney Norman
13-03-2015, 16:51
If they had an option for pre-paints or self-paints, I think everyone would be happy. There are lots of people who don't play because they have to paint, but I do notice a lot of people walk into a store just to buy models to paint and glue. Really, GW might benefit in the US by not building stores and getting Hobby Lobby or Michaels to carry their product.

EAP: And yes, I'm aware the major capital cost that would be associated with either strategy.

I think it is relatively unlikely that we will see both prepainted models and paint-yourself models for the same game, you're essentially talking about doubling the size of the miniature line they'd need to carry, which might also require a large amount of newly designed models (I can't see prepainted tactical marines coming on a sprue in 8 parts can you?). It just doesn't seem feasible for me for them to run both for the same game, if they move to prepaints we will most likely be saying goodbye to the paint-yourself range.

ooontrprzes
13-03-2015, 16:52
it would also remove that magical moment when you both put your armies on the table and spend several minutes admiring how your opponent has painted their models.

but it could theoretically remove that annoying moment when you put down your lovingly painted army, and your lazy-ass friend drops 4 pounds of grey plastic on the table and says "let's roll!" I'm not saying I want prepainted minis, but I think we all know that guy. I've been that guy in the past. I want that guy to be able to buy what he wants, too. Em 4 sells prepaints and bare metals, I've even thought of getting some for "loaner gangs" in necromunda, but I digress. I dearly hope for this rumor to be true, and it does seem corroborated in part by the end page of end times I saw earlier. "battles amongst the flames that mean nothing, yadda yadda" now, as far as round bases, no crossover, what if these smaller scale skirmish units are designed to be used as the characters and attachments for your larger units in other "versions"? boom. no more issue. This legendary hero who led his men personally in such and such is now leading the charge! I dunno, just some thoughts.

Phantom Lord
13-03-2015, 18:08
It doesn't make mass-battle wfb any more accessible than it is now because there won't be any cross over of models, it doesn't reduce the size of the line, in fact it adds more models to it, and GW have already presided over the demise of one fantasy themed skirmish game, what makes anyone think they will do a better job of this one? Really all they are doing is launching a new game without any attempt to fix the alleged problems causing poor sales in wfb.



Actually it does make it more accessible, albeit in an indirect way. Consider this: you're a new player coming into WHFB Skirmish. You start a new army and start playing. Maybe you buy a 2nd army. And then you see that WHFB Skirmish is actually derived form a mass battle game, you take a look at it and bam, you buy an army. Now, I'm not saying it will be like this for all new players, but a lot of them will I think.

And Mordheim (if that's the one you're referring to) is in a city. I presume the new skirmish game will be set in a world, hence offering more possibilities.

Spiney Norman
13-03-2015, 18:46
Actually it does make it more accessible, albeit in an indirect way. Consider this: you're a new player coming into WHFB Skirmish. You start a new army and start playing. Maybe you buy a 2nd army. And then you see that WHFB Skirmish is actually derived form a mass battle game, you take a look at it and bam, you buy an army. Now, I'm not saying it will be like this for all new players, but a lot of them will I think.

And Mordheim (if that's the one you're referring to) is in a city. I presume the new skirmish game will be set in a world, hence offering more possibilities.

Actually I was thinking about Lotr SBG, but Mordheim is an excellent second example of a mishandled skirmish game that had great potential back in the day.

The thing is buying a wfb army will remain as expensive as it was for 8th unless there is some way of using the skirmish models you have already paid for as a basis for your larger army.

General_Vega
13-03-2015, 21:16
Judge not those by their post count, but the content of their posts.

Keep dreaming MLK.

What would be the point in have 3,000 posts if you couldn't use them to throw your weight around and act like a big shot?

CariadocThorne
13-03-2015, 21:34
Actually I was thinking about Lotr SBG, but Mordheim is an excellent second example of a mishandled skirmish game that had great potential back in the day.

The thing is buying a wfb army will remain as expensive as it was for 8th unless there is some way of using the skirmish models you have already paid for as a basis for your larger army.

This.

Let's say I come along, new to the hobby, and start building a skirmish warband. After a while I decide to progress to the battle-scale game.

Now I have a small warband of models, possibly including a couple of lovingly converted characters. I want to use these guys as the core of my army, not stick them on a shelf and have to collect an army from scratch.

If I can't use my warband in my army, I'm in exactly the same position I would be in if there wasn't a skirmish game, as I still have to buy an entire new army.

In fact, I'd be worse off, because the money I spent assembling the warband is basically wasted and I'm actually having to spend more money before I get to play the battle game.

Venthrac
13-03-2015, 21:38
"I'll believe anything you say, if there's a new Bretonnian army book in it."

- Winston Zeddemore, Ghostbusters

sixfthoneybadger
13-03-2015, 22:22
Prepainted GW minis!!! You heard it here on Warseer first folks!!! :)

That aside, low post count is something to scrutinize, but not throw out altogether. People do love the gloom and doom. Rumor mongers of low and high post counts love to be vague. It's like a psychic at the state fair. If you stay vague you can't get nailed down to any one thing and then you get to go see I told you so. ALL the rumors so far have been vague enough for wiggle room. Harry's playful play on words is like a politician answering a question without really saying anything. So ultimately we all have to wait until someone actually opens a box. I hate waiting and that's why I torture myself on rumor posts. I do appreciate all the rumors and the work they put into coming here and posting. Thank you guys.

Tupinamba
13-03-2015, 22:53
So because it is positive we should believe it? At the end of the day Harry is worried by what he has heard, and this is from Mr BRING IT ON!!! He is talking about one or more armies being discontinued and sweeping changes to the background, by virtue of his accuracy record any rumour that directly contradicts what he has said is going to illicit a certain degree of skepticism.



It doesn't make mass-battle wfb any more accessible than it is now because there won't be any cross over of models, it doesn't reduce the size of the line, in fact it adds more models to it, and GW have already presided over the demise of one fantasy themed skirmish game, what makes anyone think they will do a better job of this one? Really all they are doing is launching a new game without any attempt to fix the alleged problems causing poor sales in wfb.



As a rule managers don't leak information about future releases even if they have any out of fear for their job, if this has come from a GW store manager it's probably more in the way of propaganda to limit the damage done by Darnok & Harry's rumour leaks than actual info about a future release, but we shall see.


This. + extra words.

Spider-pope
13-03-2015, 23:02
What I think is, there's gonna be no "new world", just some poor explanation on how the Realm of Chaos wraps time around itself and countless possibilities of the events preceding the End unfold themselves just to be replayed again and again and again and again... each time can be different, each time it has no meaning, because the causality principle went down the drain. If they feel like giving people some hope of better tomorrow, they might throw in a part about how Lileath drifts from one "possibility bubble" to another hoping to find one that can be steered into the End not happening.
/snip
Now note, this is not rumors, just speculation. And sadly, it's more what I hope will happen than what I think will.

Based on what ive read of Archaeon so far, you're going to be disappointed if you think the Warhammer world is going to survive.

Desildore
15-03-2015, 16:42
Personally I would have liked if all of this was true. But even better (for me) would be if 9th just was just an improved 8th edition with some changes in
the lore and some rules updated. And when it come to End times and all that. I dont use special characters so in gaming terms I dont care who is dead
or not. And the timeline has to move on at some point. You can't live forever (Looking at you Nagash :shifty:) so some characters have to go at some point.

kylek2235
15-03-2015, 18:30
The op's info looks in line with everything we've heard, its just leaves out a lot. It's the exact spin someone would say if they didn't want to lose all of their current miniature sales. If you've been around long enough to remember Dogs of War, use that as a basis of comparison. It took many years for them to phase the army out after GW stopped supporting them. That's whats going to happen here. The current ranges will likely go direct and be phased out over of a period of several years. Post Apoc is NOT a feeder game, as many have pointed out. Does this effect any of us in the short run? No. Models will be available for awhile and rules will be available at least through 9th.

Make no mistake though, The End Times is not a simple moving of the timeline. There is no timeline now. There's no building on the past. Talking in terms of what armies survive vs. squatted is inaccurate. Every army is being squatted. Start thinking in terms of what parts of the model range survives. The Empire of Man "survives," but probably none of its range for instance. To me, that means the Empire was squatted. To you, maybe not. Under my definition, only the Skaven and Demons come out of this relatively ok (Skaven only lose half their range).

As for GW going into pre-painted minis: Google search Rackham Miniatures and see how well that worked for them.

Bishops finger
16-03-2015, 01:12
Is it crazy,that is seems to me that the actual tabletop game warhammer is becoming more and more a FACADE,,a front in which to sell its ip to computer games companies and developers who what to use the warhammer world? hmmmm

Gintonpar
16-03-2015, 01:14
I really really enjoyed the end times, but I think Mannfred's appearance at the end was pretty ********. Mainly because of how it was written, as they basically say everything was going to work out without any more hindrance, Teclis has bound the two rogue winds etc, then Mannfred, who to be honest is a pretty minor player with a knack for self-preservation, trolls the entire world. I didn't buy that, even with the dark gods whispering to him it is still his conscious choice.

Anyway, that's a bit of an aside. I believe they'll roll with the punches and not maintain a game where most of the established players are playing a 'before the fall' setup. I think that would kill a lot of player's zen for building narrative. I'm anticipating a new world, or a divergent timeline, where the loss of what has gone before is established, but the sacrifice of the Incarnates is acknowledge. i.e - if it hadn't been for their work, there would now be nothing.

This at the moment is obviously wishful thinking on my part. As a huge skaven buff I was really dissapointed with their non-appearance in Nagash. After the excellent characterisation of Thanquol and the rise of the new Council, only Ikit Claw and some Verminlords made an appearance. We know, for example, thanks to WD's Apocrypha, that Vermalanx saved his vassal, and that Thanquol and Skreech are preparing to evacuate the world with Skavenblight. I was hoping the Skaven had one last betrayal of Archaon to go. So concerned with their own self preservation, and with how much they knew about Archaon's plans, why wasn't there a Skaven attempt to stop him?

Anyway, slight moan over.

One thing that should give us hope is the nigh-certainty of the next installment of the insanely popular Total War franchise being Total War:Warhammer. Now, there may be a tabletop skirmish variant coming out, but Total War doesn't do anything on a less than epic scale. I would be extremely surprised (though maybe this again is wishful thinking) that Total War's producers would tie themselves to a) dead/dormant IP, in world that has been 'ended' or b) to a model of game that is a radical departure from their 'lines of battle' approach.

However, we know that they gained the Warhammer Fantasy IP a few years ago and my nagging doubt is - do we credit GW with enough foresightedness to have planned the End Times AND 9th back in 2011/2012? I'm not sure. My fear is that we get a skirmish level bubblehammer, but I hope I'm being too cynical. The businessman in me thinks it would be crazy for THQ and GW not to be working together on a coordinated release/announcement of 9th Edition WFB with Total War:Warhammer, nor do I imagine GW were stupid enough to auction the IP and then develop a wholly separate universe to the one that they know THQ will be setting Total War in.

I mean, imagine the cognitive dissonance of the two announcements being in separate universes. The latest THQ leak points to a formal announcement of Total War:Warhammer in a matter of weeks. The rumour mill on GW points to a 9th edition release some time this year. If these games, tabletop and PC are released with one debuting a new universe and one trapped in the old, does that really make sense? And given Total War's predilection for pitched battles, is it too much to hope that 9th won't just be skirmish?

The cynic in me, however, is nervous that THQ will develop their large scale game in the dead universe, or in the End Times themselves, while WFB then pushes on with it's skirmish variant of bubblehammer.

Slightly a longer post than I intended to write, and I'm really just joining dots and hoping to rationalise towards the outcome I want the most- but hopefully food for thought :)

tl;dr

I want fantasy to stay epic, but keeping some of the old armies and characters, not a full reset. New Total War game is likely to be Total War:Warhammer, which will probs be on an epic scale, but maybe they'll just have it set in old fantasy/end times while GW bring a new universe/game out

Kyriakin
16-03-2015, 08:33
As I have only just returned, I am considering hanging around for 9th - while sitting on my unassembled 8th FW Chaos Dwarfs for future sale :( - and maybe looking at Warmaster to get my epic fantasy "fix". I have heard many good things, and buying an army on Ebay seems to be - with a few exceptions - a reasonable price. Plus, there still seems to be some decent stand-in options from other companies to fill-in the remaining gaps at the smaller scale.

It helps that I'm soon to be moving from a small outpost to London, so the chances of finding games for an long-time OoP game should be pretty decent too.

Wurfelrolle
16-03-2015, 09:04
The elements of the original post have popped up in the rumor-mill several times since last fall, and are reasonably believable. The problem, for me at least, is that for the pre-apocalypse world, the indications have been that while we might be able to use the new units, due to rules being included in the boxes, that is all we'll get. At a minimum pre-apocalypse still needs the last three army books redone, else the entire concept is mere lip-service.

Orwin
16-03-2015, 12:37
Let me get this right: according to the rumours, the new rulebook will have rules that support massive armies, like the current and past editions. OK, but what about miniature updates? The new miniature ranges are going to support the post-apocalypse lore, therefore i'll have to buy miniatures for, say, Bretonnia, from used sources or from recasters.

It's good to see the possibility of having a pre-apocalypse setting, but that is not enough if one cannot have access to the range of miniatures for his old army, mostly for those armies who have been squatted.

Desildore
16-03-2015, 14:39
Maybe it will be possible to use the army you have. If you own a Brettonia army for example. But you wont be able to buy them later on. And you wont get any updates (books/miniatures).

HelloKitty
16-03-2015, 15:33
To me its a foregone conclusion that factions as we know of them will be gone, replaced with new types of factions like "elves", "chaos", "humans" etc. I base that off of the end times lists and how they wrapped them all together.

I think things like "Bretonnians" will be gone because Bretonnia no longer exists (nor does the continent on which Bretonnia sat). I do think things like "grail knights" will still be a thing in the Realms of Man.

BorderKing
16-03-2015, 16:29
From the warhammer world events it appears that armies will get rid of all restrictions, and all you have to do is fill a certain points limit. This appeared on the warhammer world event packs but was quickly edited.

Orwin
16-03-2015, 16:54
What i really care about is where i'll be able to obtain miniatures at an affordable price. If OOP ranges, like Bretonnia, skyrocket in places like Ebay i'll have to resort to used miniatures - when avaliable - or to chinese recasts.

Lars Porsenna
16-03-2015, 17:11
What i really care about is where i'll be able to obtain miniatures at an affordable price. If OOP ranges, like Bretonnia, skyrocket in places like Ebay i'll have to resort to used miniatures - when avaliable - or to chinese recasts.

You could also look at historical miniatures. Way back in the day (i.e. 3e), Brets were just Hundred Years War figures. You could use mounted knights from FREX Front Rank as KotR, or their extensive range of infantry. FR is compatable with GW as I use some of the 2nd (i.e. 5e) Bret command groups in my historical army. Also look at Black Tree's Men of Averaign. There's a lot of duds in the range, but their foot archers are pretty decent, and some of their infantry is OK as well. Also compatable with 5e Brets/Front Rank. I was considering using the figures I have now to do a Bret army, in fact...

Damon.

The_Real_Chris
16-03-2015, 20:26
Yes Brets were a consequence of Citidel making 'traditional' models back in the day. You will have to work ont he wierd stuff, but the core historical stuff is widely available. Perry plastics or similar or Wargames Foundry should be a couple of points of call (WF making some of the old GW models still).

Captain Idaho
16-03-2015, 21:31
Isn't there no post apocalypse world with survivors? There's a new world hinted at but everything else was consumed by Chaos?

Personally, I hate background that is "inevitable destruction". If you can't win, why bother reading eh?

CariadocThorne
16-03-2015, 22:54
Isn't there no post apocalypse world with survivors? There's a new world hinted at but everything else was consumed by Chaos?

Personally, I hate background that is "inevitable destruction". If you can't win, why bother reading eh?

Because it's heroic to keep fighting the impossible odds and winning, even if it's only a temporary reprieve. There's also always the hope that asking as you keep postponing the inevitable, one day someone might just find the way to change things and make real victory possible.

Anyway, when did you ever read a good story where the good guys weren't up against an apparently hopeless situation and manage to win anyway? Except, because we don't want the story to end, the good guys CAN'T win properly, otherwise it's game over.

The fact that GW screwed us all by making the bad guys win permanently and now it's game over anyway doesn't change the original point.

Fallstorm
17-03-2015, 01:00
I am excited for the possibility of using allies in 9th edition and playing unbound rules. These are elements of 40k that I are great to add to the game both from a business standpoint and from a rules perspective. From the business standpoint it will motivate people to buy more models, and from a rules standpoint it will correct some of vast gaps that exist within certain armies. For example, WOC will no longer have to go “Oh crap” when facing Dwarven and Empire gunlines. Now, WOC can add daemons and Beastmen to their list to get scouts (nurglings) and ambushers (fleshhound, gor ambushers), and cannons (Khorne Skull cannons) to their list and do what every other army can. Likewise DOC will no longer have to say worry so much about BOTWD because they can add troops to their units with non-magical attacks, or if completely unbound just take organ guns and steam tanks from other armies. I really think this would create ultimate balance within the game, because if every army can take everything there is really no more unbalanced armies. As it stands right now, while 8th edition is perhaps more balanced than prior editions, there are still too many rock, paper, scissor match ups in the game. Allied rules and unbound rules will correct this.

Lastly, I think a viable skirmish option is great as a entry point to the game, provided all phases of the game (movement, magic, shooting, and close combat) are still present in the skirmish game AND if the two starter armies in the game are balanced against each other.

From what I have seen in the previous books the two starter armies have not been balanced in either fantasy or 40k. For example, in Fantasy 8 box you get HE and Skaven and the Skaven army and units presented in that book are far stronger than what the HE have. Likewise in 40k the CSM presented really don’t compare to the opposition they are presented with (DA units). GW does not realize when they do this they actually discourage players. I know gamers who have stopped the hobby because they felt their armies were very underpowered and did not want to spend money on another one. One of these was a WE player (hopefully with the allied rules and new WE book he has rejoined the fold, but he stopped about 3-4 years ago) and a Bret player.

JackStreicher
17-03-2015, 01:47
I don t know know to feel about this 3-way system. On one hand it seems practical enough. On the other hand however I am asking myself why I would want to play preapokalypse since all heroes and units I will make up or play will perish into nothingness eventually...

:-/

Col. Tartleton
17-03-2015, 02:07
If this is the case there's really nothing to be upset about. Warhammer Fantasy continues as the standard, End Times becomes entrenched as the "Apocalypse" variant, then they launch a round base skirmish game to offer something that competes with Warmachine/Hordes.

Everyone wins.


I don t know know to feel about this 3-way system. On one hand it seems practical enough. On the other hand however I am asking myself why I would want to play preapokalypse since all heroes and units I will make up or play will perish into nothingness eventually...

:-/

Unless they were immortal I thought everyone eventually dying was a given. Most likely from the bloody flux. I mean it's the Old World there's **** everywhere. Even the Elves are mortal, albeit long lived and prone to reincarnating for additional rounds of fisticuffs.

The only immortal dudes were characters like Nagash and Belakor etc.

tiger g
17-03-2015, 02:19
I don t know know to feel about this 3-way system. On one hand it seems practical enough. On the other hand however I am asking myself why I would want to play preapokalypse since all heroes and units I will make up or play will perish into nothingness eventually...

:-/

You mean like historical miniatures

KidDiscordia
17-03-2015, 03:00
Anyway, when did you ever read a good story where the good guys weren't up against an apparently hopeless situation and manage to win anyway? Except, because we don't want the story to end, the good guys CAN'T win properly, otherwise it's game over.


Mick Farren's "The Last Stand of the DNA Cowboys" comes to mind. Strangely enough, the setting is the Earth divided into bubbles of Reality after a devastating war and the forces of chaos are destroying them one by one.

Pink Horror
17-03-2015, 05:11
I don t know know to feel about this 3-way system. On one hand it seems practical enough. On the other hand however I am asking myself why I would want to play preapokalypse since all heroes and units I will make up or play will perish into nothingness eventually...

:-/

Oh my god, my heroes will die, my units will die... I will die. This is all pointless, isn't it?

Wurfelrolle
17-03-2015, 06:41
I am excited for the possibility of using allies in 9th edition and playing unbound rules. These are elements of 40k that I are great to add to the game both from a business standpoint and from a rules perspective. From the business standpoint it will motivate people to buy more models, and from a rules standpoint it will correct some of vast gaps that exist within certain armies. For example, WOC will no longer have to go “Oh crap” when facing Dwarven and Empire gunlines. Now, WOC can add daemons and Beastmen to their list to get scouts (nurglings) and ambushers (fleshhound, gor ambushers), and cannons (Khorne Skull cannons) to their list and do what every other army can. Likewise DOC will no longer have to say worry so much about BOTWD because they can add troops to their units with non-magical attacks, or if completely unbound just take organ guns and steam tanks from other armies. I really think this would create ultimate balance within the game, because if every army can take everything there is really no more unbalanced armies. As it stands right now, while 8th edition is perhaps more balanced than prior editions, there are still too many rock, paper, scissor match ups in the game. Allied rules and unbound rules will correct this.


I'm from the other school. I think limited use of allies might be okay, but I feel that Unbound is an unmitigated disaster that turns the game into a giant mess; similar to when children play war games using every single toy in the toy box. It's a wonderful exercise in imagination for children, but a torrid mess for what is supposed to be a competitive wargame. The examples you list, while they are great balancing acts that make battles equal... that is the very essence of why they are bad. They make every battle equal. The very flavor that makes every army interesting, their strengths and weaknesses versus different opponents, are now utterly gone. Every game becomes virtually every other game. Differences between units are minimal, the only "flavor" any army has is the specific race a unit is, and why would we expect GW to make ten different races of spearmen, when one or two races worth will fit the need?

When my friends and I agree to a battle, we all have more than one army, and we hardly ever say what army we will be bringing to the table before we actually show up. That's a large part of the excitement of the day; what cheesy mess will my cheesy mess have to face? How will the dynamic that my force is built upon match up against my unknown opponents? It's very much a bit of the excitement of going to a tournament, that not knowing what to expect. In the "Unbound" format that you describe, there is almost no mystery left, because nearly every army will end up fielding the exact same forces, with only minor differences based on specific races chosen for infantry-cavalry-monster-war machine-magic.

Even in historical wargames, where opposing armies are extremely similar, there are usually minor pros & cons to each side that emphasize consistent use of certain tactics, but "ultimate balance" is everybody playing with the exact same army, and that doesn't sound like all that much fun to me.

Andy p
17-03-2015, 07:54
As a rule managers don't leak information about future releases even if they have any out of fear for their job, if this has come from a GW store manager it's probably more in the way of propaganda to limit the damage done by Darnok & Harry's rumour leaks than actual info about a future release, but we shall see.

I might just be naive to the way of the world but I really don't think they care at all about the opinion of a few thousand people on an internet forum, I think you're overstating our importance.

However you have been here longer than me so maybe you've seen examples of direct action (that wasn't to do with legal issues) taken because of this forum.
Mind you to be fair you didn't mention this forum and I do know businesses can be paranoid though so perhaps it has filtered through the internet enough for an impact

Spiney Norman
17-03-2015, 08:31
I might just be naive to the way of the world but I really don't think they care at all about the opinion of a few thousand people on an internet forum, I think you're overstating our importance.

Oh I fully accept that GW don't give a toss what is said on the Internet, but it makes sense to me that if someone walked into a GW store and started sounding off about how they'd read on warseer that Wfb will be dead in six months and how half the factions are being squatted the manager would need some kind of reassuring 'don't believe what you heard on the Internet, let me reassure you about then future of the game' patter to prevent potential paying customers from being discouraged from their purchases.


However you have been here longer than me so maybe you've seen examples of direct action (that wasn't to do with legal issues) taken because of this forum.
Mind you to be fair you didn't mention this forum and I do know businesses can be paranoid though so perhaps it has filtered through the internet enough for an impact

Rumours are considered legal issues, they take leaks extremely seriously, frequently issuing cease and desist notices to any website caught posting pics from white dwarf posted before the official release date. GW has been operating a strict secrecy policy regarding new releases for some years now, in fact they make a point of not telling their store managers anything about future releases specifically so they can't leak info, I don't think its at all outside of the realms of possibility that someone could find themselves staring down the barrel of disciplinary action for leaking accurate prerelease information when GW goes to the lengths of legal action for sites that post prerelease pictures.

vlad78
17-03-2015, 09:32
Oh my god, my heroes will die, my units will die... I will die. This is all pointless, isn't it?

Imho it depends on how they die. I don't care about the ludicrous amount of poorly written heroes GW has tossed in the game for the last 15 years because of a lack of writing skills, but the ET is of the same quality = poor and gw has destroyed the world their first writers created for perceived ip problems which is the pinnacle of stupidity.

Pointless? Yes 9th will be pointless (I just can't see them write a setting good enough to replace the old) and I will protest with my wallet. No dîme for GW this year and maybe the next if the trend continues.

SanDiegoSurrealist
17-03-2015, 12:38
GW keeps all this so close to the chest, I wont believe anything until I have the 9th Edition book in my hands.

Fallstorm
17-03-2015, 14:02
I'm from the other school. I think limited use of allies might be okay, but I feel that Unbound is an unmitigated disaster that turns the game into a giant mess; similar to when children play war games using every single toy in the toy box. It's a wonderful exercise in imagination for children, but a torrid mess for what is supposed to be a competitive wargame. The examples you list, while they are great balancing acts that make battles equal... that is the very essence of why they are bad. They make every battle equal. The very flavor that makes every army interesting, their strengths and weaknesses versus different opponents, are now utterly gone. Every game becomes virtually every other game. Differences between units are minimal, the only "flavor" any army has is the specific race a unit is, and why would we expect GW to make ten different races of spearmen, when one or two races worth will fit the need?

When my friends and I agree to a battle, we all have more than one army, and we hardly ever say what army we will be bringing to the table before we actually show up. That's a large part of the excitement of the day; what cheesy mess will my cheesy mess have to face? How will the dynamic that my force is built upon match up against my unknown opponents? It's very much a bit of the excitement of going to a tournament, that not knowing what to expect. In the "Unbound" format that you describe, there is almost no mystery left, because nearly every army will end up fielding the exact same forces, with only minor differences based on specific races chosen for infantry-cavalry-monster-war machine-magic.

Even in historical wargames, where opposing armies are extremely similar, there are usually minor pros & cons to each side that emphasize consistent use of certain tactics, but "ultimate balance" is everybody playing with the exact same army, and that doesn't sound like all that much fun to me.
To a degree I can understand your concern that if unbound rules come into play every army will be the same, but I think this concern is unwarranted. This can arguably be a problem in 40k because in 40k everyone is either a space marine (the only thing that changes between them is the color of their armor and the symbol on their arm patches i.e. some marines have bright armor and a symbol The Emperor while others have skulls and a symbol of a chaos god, but essentially their stats are the same), or one of the few other races that are not space marines. In fantasy, I think every army/faction is different enough that even with allies and unbound rules this will not be a problem. For example, I don’t think an Empire army that includes Dwarven warmachines (say 2 organ guns and a grudge thrower) and Elven fast cavalry (Elyrian Reavers) and great Eagles plus one chimera, will play or feel the same as a Warriors of Chaos army that has 2 Skull cannons of Khorne, Doomfire Warlocks and harpies plus a steamtank.
What this match up will do however is create a strong balance that is very much needed in the game especially at tournament level play.

The excitement of not knowing what you are facing beforehand and seeing how it matches up to your own army is still there but without the rock, paper, scissors, style of play. To be more specific this takes away the almost auto-win match ups that exist in the game now. For example, if you play a Daemons of Chaos army and show up at a tourney that has a strong High Elf presence with every one of your opponents taking “Banner of the The World Dragon” it is almost an auto-lose for Daemons. I had a friend that went to a tournament with his Nurgle Daemons list and out of 6 games faced three High Elves. 2 of them had a Huge Deathstar of White Lions with Banner of the World Dragon, a few bolt throwers and fast cavalry for everything else. Yes, he can focus points on the other units like the 2 bolt throwers and maybe catch some fast cavalry units but the points earned of that is very low. He got crushed because the star came at him and he can only chaff it up for so long and hurting the star back is nigh impossible. Likewise, I play Warriors of Chaos and I will tell you that facing an Empire or Dwarf gunline is almost an auto loss.

I recently faced, a gunline that consisted of 2 organ guns, 3 cannons, 1 grudge thrower, 2 gyro copters, a gyrobomber, a unit of quarrelers, and then when you finally make it across the field to him he has 2 stubborn blocks of warriors waiting for you. I can say that while my opponent was an amiable enough chap this was not fun nor exciting to play against. I got murdered round one and had zero fun. Unbound and allied rules are needed to correct this game. Armies like Tomb kings seem like they need allies to be effective. Wood Elves were bad for a long time (the new book is up for debate). Daemons need some way to put non-magical attacks on troops so that they can survive elves (yes, I am sure there are daemon players that beat World Dragon crap and warriors that survived to conquer gunlines but those are the exceptions not the norm), Warriors of Chaos need some tools (ambushers, scouts, cannon shooting) like other armies have because in the current meta marching across the field to get to your opponent is no longer a viable option. WOC, have not had a good track record in the past few years (I would say 1-2 years) since the Dwarf book came out (HE and DE and VC screamer list also wreck Warriors because again we lack tools like cannon and shooting and skirmishers/scouts/ambushers to deal with these list) and things changed to heavy artillery list and elves of all sorts spamming fast cav list with HE doing the BOTWD star for support and DE doing the WE star. The Daemon Prince is DOA as soon as he hits the table. The Blasted standard while it seems good is actually pretty horrible because rules as written you role for every model hit even for templates so actually it ends up doing more damage to WOC especially if your opponents have a lot of low strength shooting (skink clouds and accurate and accurate template weapons) and 2 “unkillable” characters can’t support a whole army.

Having played with allies rules just using the End Time I can see how amazing allies are and how having some of the tools takes away stress of facing opponents. For example, a few games I borrowed my pals daemons to use on a Legions of Chaos list I built. It was amazing. I faced The Empire. Now, normally when I face Empire with WOC and I see he has 2 steam tanks, a Hellfire Volley gun, a great cannon, core knights all with +1 armor saves, a buff wagon that gives him extra dice for magic and a +1 to hit I know it is going to be an uphill battle. The steam tanks are a huge problem because I can feed them a pack of dogs for one round. Then the Stank chews through it. The next round I can feed him another pack of hounds or a marauder horsemen unit, but then what? Yes, I can put my unkillable lord in their but even with str 6-7 attacks the stank has 10 wounds and 1+ armor so that it will take me 2-3 rounds to chew through the stank that is 2-3 rounds of being locked in combat I can’t afford. Stanks are a huge problem for WOC, yet everytime I said so people who played other armies tended to poo poo the stank. Well, after joining my WOC with DOC I see why.

When I faced The Empire with Legions and saw his list it was like “Yeah, he’s got 2 stanks well I got 2 skull cannons I can focus fire and take one down with these bad boys” (we all know how accurate cannons are 10” from the back is the magic number that makes WH cannons more accurate than cannons used during the Civil War, then I can just put a beast of nurgle into the unit and hold it one up until I focus fire on it. Meanwhile on that Hellfire volley gun I don’t have to worry at all about it because round 2 my fleshhounds are coming in (provided I roll a 3+ which I should do) and round 3 I am charging it. 1-2 Fleshhounds can kill a volley gun, which leaves my WOC block and “Unkillable” characters free to focus on his 1+ armor knights with nasty characters. Yes, he will have some tricks like the +1 to hit, and characters with nasty items like the speculum, and he will out magic me because his casters are cheaper and he has more magic dice than me, but at least I didn’t get hammered with stanks and shooting in addition to that. At least, I have a fighting chance. Yes, cannons and stanks are not that bad when you have cannons and stuff to deal with them. To make matters worse the U.S Masters Committee ruled that you can't march block stanks by parking a unit beside them and preventing them to turn. They ruled that if the stanks turn allows it to touch the unit it counts as a charge with impact hits and all that.



Yeah, I say bring on the allies and unbound. Balance is needed.

HelloKitty
17-03-2015, 14:36
I will say that where I am the allies and unbound have created more diversity in the games of 40k I have ever seen in almost 20 years. It does create some broken builds, but everyone has access to broken builds so if you are playing "competitively", you have tools at your disposal.

If you are playing narratively, you have the ability to create anything you want.

Fallstorm
17-03-2015, 15:07
I will say that where I am the allies and unbound have created more diversity in the games of 40k I have ever seen in almost 20 years. It does create some broken builds, but everyone has access to broken builds so if you are playing "competitively", you have tools at your disposal.

If you are playing narratively, you have the ability to create anything you want.

I am not super into 40k but I can see what you are saying. Like I said, Unbound and allies just make sense from an economic, rules mechanics and narrative perspective. Rules wise it closes gaps in the rules by providing every army access to the same tools to correct their weakness, yet diversity in the game still exist because 1) not every army has the same weakness and 2) not everyone is going to choose the same tools. I mean, in real life everyone has access to chocolate cake that does not mean that everyone eats chocolate cake or even sweets all. From a fluffy narrative perspective the rules makes sense via allowing the player to come up with a cool reason for his army to ally together or in some constances even to fit into the fluff of the current world that the rules of the game don't reflect. Consider in WHFB 8th edition it talks about The Empire being rife with Chaos cults and so forth but that is not reflected in the rules as written anywhere. Well, with allies and unbound rules if I wanted to put a steamtank in my army in place of a Hellcannon or use Pistoleers in place of Marauder Horsemen this would reflect those cults and stuff the narrative of warhammer talks about. Lastly, from an economic perspective access to every faction and unit means people will buy more models to fill in the units they want (like I will definately purchase a steamtank or two) plus go buy the army book for that army to learn more about what else they may have. I see it is a Win/Win/Win.

The_Real_Chris
17-03-2015, 15:48
Yeah, I say bring on the allies and unbound. Balance is needed.

While the desire to play with all your toys is a valid one, indeed is something we all do from an early age, it is not a wargame as commonly understood. But it is a popular game.

Idealy restricted lists is for each side to have a style or flavour, giving each several playstyles all of which have a chance against others. But this takes time, skill and playtesting. The easy approach is anyone can take anything. Now stat balancing becomes less important and you can use rule of thumb to do stats and rules. Take a look at Epic - it has taken a decade to develope a dozen balanced lists for EpicUK and the core GW game only managed 7 and 1 unbalanced one while it was being published.

This is the right approach to target people who want to buy 'cool' models and use them all in a game. It is the wrong approach to get people who want to play an interesting and varied game, they will continue to leave for other systems. Has it worked for 40k? Sales don't seem to be increasing.

Fallstorm
17-03-2015, 16:42
While the desire to play with all your toys is a valid one, indeed is something we all do from an early age, it is not a wargame as commonly understood. But it is a popular game.

Idealy restricted lists is for each side to have a style or flavour, giving each several playstyles all of which have a chance against others. But this takes time, skill and playtesting. The easy approach is anyone can take anything. Now stat balancing becomes less important and you can use rule of thumb to do stats and rules. Take a look at Epic - it has taken a decade to develope a dozen balanced lists for EpicUK and the core GW game only managed 7 and 1 unbalanced one while it was being published.

This is the right approach to target people who want to buy 'cool' models and use them all in a game. It is the wrong approach to get people who want to play an interesting and varied game, they will continue to leave for other systems. Has it worked for 40k? Sales don't seem to be increasing.


When I don't know something I don't try to pretend that I do. I say, that to preface that I must humbly profess my ignorance of EpicUK. I am honestly, not sure what that is. In terms of 40k sales. I don't know if 40k sales have increased or decreased, but what I do know is that 40k is more popular than fantasy even though I feel that overall fantasy is a better designed game. I think that fantasy incorporationg some elements of 40k into the the system would be a boost and help increase the sales and playability of the game. One of those changes that I think will help them is to allow allies and unbound armies. Now, while I can't say if GW 40k sales have increased or not I can say that I recently went to a 40K tournament (not as a participant I just stopped by my local gaming store and fairly large 40k tournament was taking place). I spent about an hour at the store looking at the armies and browsing. One thing I noticed was that just about every army even non-Space Marine armies had included 1-2 Imperial Knights in their list. This made sense to me as a while ago I asked a friend who plays 40k how he deals with Imperial Knights that from what I can tell are almost like Superheavies (but not quite). His answer was simple. He shrugged his shoulders and said "How I deal with Imperial Knights? I bring some of my own." So, if everyone was fielding them people had to go out and buy those models so I don't think this rules change HURT GW's sales. Again, I am not going to profess to be an expert on the 40k game or universe but what I can say is in terms of fantasy is that their are armies that real now have some huge gaps in them and don't have fun when facing other armies. My army is Warriors of Chaos. Yes, our core troops have a great stat line, but playing an army that pretty much has zero shooting (the Hellcannon is more of a monster than stonethrower), and no ambushers (unless you take Wulfrik and a horde of marauders to go along with him which is pricey and a lot of tournaments disallow special characters anyway), no scouts, and so forth where all you can do is try to get across the field and not get shot to death is not a valid option or playstyle anymore. Other armies have their issues too, but I am just using the one I know as an example. Bottom line something has to change and allies/unbound is the only way I can see to correct the problem.

TheDanish
17-03-2015, 17:40
I suspected for a long time that this was how it would go down. Even if the "source rumor" isn't accurate, I think we'll see something similar.

Montegue
17-03-2015, 18:32
I will say that where I am the allies and unbound have created more diversity in the games of 40k I have ever seen in almost 20 years. It does create some broken builds, but everyone has access to broken builds so if you are playing "competitively", you have tools at your disposal.

If you are playing narratively, you have the ability to create anything you want.


Out Slannesh!

That way lies the temptation of Unbound. "But, you *can* play it like that and have fun without being broken". Yes, of course you can. But then you have to deal with it every time you decide to schlep on down to the FLGS for a pick up game, and you have to pick and choose between tournaments because they're trying to please everyone and some will open the flood gates or let them slowly trickle in.

Bad design is bad design, and it doesn't matter if you can make lemonade out of the lemon.

Desildore
17-03-2015, 18:35
I'm just waiting for Harry to swoop in and leave a cryptic message :D

SuperHappyTime
17-03-2015, 18:59
Two different points here:
1. I had a shuddering thought about why the End Times killed the army building limits: Maybe by this time next year, when 9th is out and going, even the cheesiest 8th edition army you can think of (a list of 3 DPs and cannons, for example) won't stand a ghost of a chance against a 9th Edition army.

2. On making lists Unbound as ET ends, there's a part I don't get. Several rumors with truth indicate the direction we are heading is 3 core troop choices and a rotating cast of model figures. But that wouldn't fit with unbound. Why would I bother taking any of the "Core Troops" if I can always take things that are better.

Tyranno1
17-03-2015, 19:19
When I don't know something I don't try to pretend that I do. I say, that to preface that I must humbly profess my ignorance of EpicUK. I am honestly, not sure what that is. In terms of 40k sales. I don't know if 40k sales have increased or decreased, but what I do know is that 40k is more popular than fantasy even though I feel that overall fantasy is a better designed game. I think that fantasy incorporationg some elements of 40k into the the system would be a boost and help increase the sales and playability of the game. One of those changes that I think will help them is to allow allies and unbound armies. Now, while I can't say if GW 40k sales have increased or not I can say that I recently went to a 40K tournament (not as a participant I just stopped by my local gaming store and fairly large 40k tournament was taking place). I spent about an hour at the store looking at the armies and browsing. One thing I noticed was that just about every army even non-Space Marine armies had included 1-2 Imperial Knights in their list. This made sense to me as a while ago I asked a friend who plays 40k how he deals with Imperial Knights that from what I can tell are almost like Superheavies (but not quite). His answer was simple. He shrugged his shoulders and said "How I deal with Imperial Knights? I bring some of my own." So, if everyone was fielding them people had to go out and buy those models so I don't think this rules change HURT GW's sales. Again, I am not going to profess to be an expert on the 40k game or universe but what I can say is in terms of fantasy is that their are armies that real now have some huge gaps in them and don't have fun when facing other armies. My army is Warriors of Chaos. Yes, our core troops have a great stat line, but playing an army that pretty much has zero shooting (the Hellcannon is more of a monster than stonethrower), and no ambushers (unless you take Wulfrik and a horde of marauders to go along with him which is pricey and a lot of tournaments disallow special characters anyway), no scouts, and so forth where all you can do is try to get across the field and not get shot to death is not a valid option or playstyle anymore. Other armies have their issues too, but I am just using the one I know as an example. Bottom line something has to change and allies/unbound is the only way I can see to correct the problem.

For the sake of argument. Imagine for a moment I still play 40K.

What if I do not want to play Imperial Knights? What if I happened to dislike the models and do not want to use them? Is my answer now to just accept being pulped just because I didnt want to take something so overpowering that all armies HAVE to use it?
Also. Unbound is the single worst thing possible. Already people at my local store have taken too using End Times lists featuring nothing more than a cherry picking of broken units. With Unbound what is to stop people from using armies of 100% Nurgle Daemon Princes? Or 100% Bolt Throwers?



Also, if you are playing Warriors of Chaos and cannot handle Warmachines, try Marauder Horsemen, Warhounds or Hellstriders. All of which can reach the back of the opposite side in about 2 turns (The Hounds preferably will need Vanguard to do so). Either your opponent will HAVE to shoot your incoming fast units, letting your bulky slower stuff arrive safely, or they ignore them and lose all their warmachines.
The game is not as Rock/Paper/Scissors as you think. You need to figure out what your army (This case WoC) cannot handle very well and look for the answer.

Fallstorm
17-03-2015, 19:41
For the sake of argument. Imagine for a moment I still play 40K.

What if I do not want to play Imperial Knights? What if I happened to dislike the models and do not want to use them? Is my answer now to just accept being pulped just because I didnt want to take something so overpowering that all armies HAVE to use it?
Also. Unbound is the single worst thing possible. Already people at my local store have taken too using End Times lists featuring nothing more than a cherry picking of broken units. With Unbound what is to stop people from using armies of 100% Nurgle Daemon Princes? Or 100% Bolt Throwers?



Also, if you are playing Warriors of Chaos and cannot handle Warmachines, try Marauder Horsemen, Warhounds or Hellstriders. All of which can reach the back of the opposite side in about 2 turns (The Hounds preferably will need Vanguard to do so). Either your opponent will HAVE to shoot your incoming fast units, letting your bulky slower stuff arrive safely, or they ignore them and lose all their warmachines.
The game is not as Rock/Paper/Scissors as you think. You need to figure out what your army (This case WoC) cannot handle very well and look for the answer.

Hi Tyran01,
First, my list does include usually around 2 drops and vanguarding dogs and 1-2 drops of marauder horsemen of Slaanesh. Dwarven warmachines don’t need to focus on these units. They can have their thunderers and quarrellers focus on these units while their warmachines like organ guns and cannons focus on more threat worthy targets like Chimeras and so forth.
I appreciate your perspective but I am not going to turn this into a thread on WOC (I know there have been other threads for army problems), but it pretty much is a Rock/Paper/Scissors match up and even the Swedish comp system feedback results acknowledges this to a degree with Dwarves and Empire being one of the hardest match ups for WOC. Other armies have their rough match ups also (Daemons suffer when facing High Elves with Banner of the World Dragon). Allied rules and unbound is a quick, easy, and viable way to resolve this issue.
In regards, to your 40k question yes, your answer is to take Imperial Knights and be able to combat what your opponent is doing or a) continue to get beat but be happy in sticking to your principles or b) don’t play competitively and play with a friend with lists agreed upon by you two beforehand. I don’t see a problem with this. It is like if I had a problem facing troll hordes and someone told me a way around this was to utilize flaming attacks, and I declined to do this because I think other items are more “cool” or flavorful to my army than flaming attacks, but then I go out and get my army stomped (pun intended) by trolls. Who do I have to blame but myself for not making optimal choices? Answer: No one.

CariadocThorne
17-03-2015, 20:00
Even as someone who thinks unbound in 40k is literally the worst thing GW have ever done (so far, at least, although if even half the rumours about the future of warhammer are true, I may need to revise that statement), I have to say it wouldn't be as bad in warhammer.

In 40k, you can turn up with a balanced list, containing a mix of vehicles and infantry, assault and shooting, anti-tank and anti-infantry, a little anti-air, and then your opponent turns up with a fricking Titan and some knights. Even playing flawlessly and rolling nothing but 6's, you still can't win unless your opponent is either incompetent or extremely unlucky.

There is no equivalent to Titans in warhammer, and you wouldn't get totally unwinnable games.

However, unbound would still do what allies did to the last edition of 40k, take away armies weaknesses.

Every army has both strengths and weaknesses, and while even 8th certainly isn't perfectly balanced, the balance between armies is pretty good, and having weaknesses is essential to that balance, as well as to the flavour and character of the armies, and the game.

Everyone used to main about Tau being OP in 40k, but pure Tau weren't. They are a strong shooting army in a shooting based edition, but they have a few weaknesses. When you take Tau with space marine or eldar allies, you can completely lose the weakness, without losing much of the strength.

Allies can work, but it has to be allies who don't completely negate your weaknesses.

For example, mixing the three types of elves isn't too bad. They all have fairly similar strengths and weaknesses, so it works. If you gave wood elves access to the wrong allies, you could remove their weaknesses. And the same applies to every other army.

That's what unbound would do to warhammer, and it's just bad for the game.

Fallstorm
17-03-2015, 20:10
Even as someone who thinks unbound in 40k is literally the worst thing GW have ever done (so far, at least, although if even half the rumours about the future of warhammer are true, I may need to revise that statement), I have to say it wouldn't be as bad in warhammer.

In 40k, you can turn up with a balanced list, containing a mix of vehicles and infantry, assault and shooting, anti-tank and anti-infantry, a little anti-air, and then your opponent turns up with a fricking Titan and some knights. Even playing flawlessly and rolling nothing but 6's, you still can't win unless your opponent is either incompetent or extremely unlucky.

There is no equivalent to Titans in warhammer, and you wouldn't get totally unwinnable games.

However, unbound would still do what allies did to the last edition of 40k, take away armies weaknesses.

Every army has both strengths and weaknesses, and while even 8th certainly isn't perfectly balanced, the balance between armies is pretty good, and having weaknesses is essential to that balance, as well as to the flavour and character of the armies, and the game.

Everyone used to main about Tau being OP in 40k, but pure Tau weren't. They are a strong shooting army in a shooting based edition, but they have a few weaknesses. When you take Tau with space marine or eldar allies, you can completely lose the weakness, without losing much of the strength.

Allies can work, but it has to be allies who don't completely negate your weaknesses.

For example, mixing the three types of elves isn't too bad. They all have fairly similar strengths and weaknesses, so it works. If you gave wood elves access to the wrong allies, you could remove their weaknesses. And the same applies to every other army.

That's what unbound would do to warhammer, and it's just bad for the game.

What is bad for the game is someone showing up at a tournament and getting almost completely wiped out by turn 3 of the game because his opponent knows how to castle in the corner as far back from the field as possible, has a vast amount of warmachines to bombard his opponent with, and is not a dummy when it comes to target selection. This does not take a high amount of skill to do. Now, you give the opponent the tools to shoot back at his organs guns and cannons or ambush near his lines and the game becomes equal. The gap in armies is too wide. Again, speaking of an army I know in the current meta of all fast cavalry and warmachines being an almost pure close combat army is not viable, especially when cannons are more accurate than Civil War cannons with the 10" from the back magic formula to hit.
Daemons are jacked if they face High Elves. This needs to go.



Also, as I said I think the armies are so different in Warhammer that people taking supplements to their army to shore up the weakness will not take away the distinctness of the army. Empire with Dwarven Hammerers instead of halbediers and sabretusk as chaff will still play very and feel very differently than WOC with Beast of Nurgle as chaff and skull cannons and Dark Elf bolt throwers in it.

dalezzz
17-03-2015, 20:37
In regards, to your 40k question yes, your answer is to take Imperial Knights and be able to combat what your opponent is doing or a) continue to get beat but be happy in sticking to your principles or b) don’t play competitively and play with a friend with lists agreed upon by you two beforehand. I don’t see a problem with this. It is like if I had a problem facing troll hordes and someone told me a way around this was to utilize flaming attacks, and I declined to do this because I think other items are more “cool” or flavorful to my army than flaming attacks, but then I go out and get my army stomped (pun intended) by trolls. Who do I have to blame but myself for not making optimal choices? Answer: No one.

being forced to take the banner of eternal flame (or something similar) in your list , is not really the same as being forced to take 2 £85 models (its good for GW , as long as it doesnt cause people to quit.... wich it does) that you may or may not like .
Are there any models you cannot stand? would being forced to take them to win be good in your mind?

Fallstorm
17-03-2015, 20:49
being forced to take the banner of eternal flame (or something similar) in your list , is not really the same as being forced to take 2 £85 models (its good for GW , as long as it doesnt cause people to quit.... wich it does) that you may or may not like .
Are there any models you cannot stand? would being forced to take them to win be good in your mind?

There are some models that I like better than others, but to answer your question there are no models that I think are just so overly horrendous that I could not field them if they provided a needed function within my army. To me that is like a general needing a stealth and close combat specialist for a mission and having a candidate with experience and top marks in both fields but not choosing him because he is ugly and has a huge scar on his face. What I do think drives people away from the game is when a new player comes and chooses an army and finds out how poorly optimized that army is, repeatedly loses games, and then drops out of the hobby as is what happened to the friends I mentioned that had gotten into 8th edition WH and chosen Wood Elves and Brets respectively as their starter armies. Again, unbound and allies makes all tools accessible to everyone. All tools accessible to everyone means game balance. Game balance means a better play experience. A better play experience means more players. More players is a win for everyone.

dalezzz
17-03-2015, 21:01
i dont see the difference personally , what difference is there between " you need 7 units from other armys to compete" and "you need a new army" ? the bret player could have made a competetive force if he had bought the right models , he didnt , so how would buying units from other armys have helped him? the wood elf player maybe couldnt have made a decent force (depends when he tried i guess) but he wanted to play wood elves obviously , would playing a high elf army with a unit or 2 of wood elves made him happy? and if so why didnt you just let him do that? As friends playing each other you can do whatever you agree to despite any rules

The_Real_Chris
17-03-2015, 21:05
I must humbly profess my ignorance of EpicUK. I am honestly, not sure what that is.

Sorry was just an example of balanced rules development. After GW stopped developing Epic these guys do army lists for the Epic tournies in the UK. It is very slow as the lists have to be balanced against all the other lists and not overpowered. They aim to do one every 6 months, but is a bit longer in the past.
http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp/


In terms of 40k sales. I don't know if 40k sales have increased or decreased, but what I do know is that 40k is more popular than fantasy even though I feel that overall fantasy is a better designed game.

Go tot he GW general forum for lots of discussions on this... GW revenue is down, 40k could be static while WFB went off a cliff, but maybe it grew a bit. However the player base is down with profit being generated by better margins on fewer sales.

The design one is a common arguement as well. WFB has gone from a battle system to one with bigger formations. 40k has gone from a skirmish system to a mass battle system and is perhaps not handling the transistion as well.


My army is Warriors of Chaos. Yes, our core troops have a great stat line, but playing an army that pretty much has zero shooting (the Hellcannon is more of a monster than stonethrower), and no ambushers (unless you take Wulfrik and a horde of marauders to go along with him which is pricey and a lot of tournaments disallow special characters anyway), no scouts, and so forth where all you can do is try to get across the field and not get shot to death is not a valid option or playstyle anymore.

That is simply an example of bad game design. You have two ways round that, let your army take the same units other armies have, or balance it better in the first place. Epic for me is where GW managed balance best out of all their wargames. You can have an army of guardsman in trenches against an army of marines with orbital support, drop-pods and thunderhawks and it is balanced. If it wasn't you could allow the 'guard to have thunderhawks as well, but that is a sticking plaster for poor design. Think of it in a historicals game. If the Axis player has incredible tanks, you don't take away the Yanks Shermans and give them Tiger's instead to compensate. instead there are other methods of balance.

As GW wishes to save money on game design, and spend less time testing etc, unbound is ideal as you can never make too big a mistake that can't be corrected by everyone getting one. But that style of play isn't for everyone. A lot of gamers will want different playstyles fighting each other, not using the same crutches

Fallstorm
17-03-2015, 21:18
i dont see the difference personally , what difference is there between " you need 7 units from other armys to compete" and "you need a new army" ? the bret player could have made a competetive force if he had bought the right models , he didnt , so how would buying units from other armys have helped him? the wood elf player maybe couldnt have made a decent force (depends when he tried i guess) but he wanted to play wood elves obviously , would playing a high elf army with a unit or 2 of wood elves made him happy? and if so why didnt you just let him do that? As friends playing each other you can do whatever you agree to despite any rules
There is a significant difference between needing several gaps and needing an entirely new army. The latter requires you to completely abandon your army while the former allows you to keep the basic chassis of what you like and supplement it with other units. For example, my Legions of Chaos army is basically a WOC army supplemented with shooting (skull cannons of Khorne) and ambushers (Fleshhounds of Khorne) this corrects the weakness of just a pure Warriors army but still feels dark and evil and has the flavor I want to it. This is very different than saying go play Dark Elves. I am not trying to be rude here but this should be obvious.
As to my colleagues abandoning the hobby. Well, we all started as part of an escalation league. I didn’t know much about Warhammer myself then, I just happen to pick an army that while not top tier was viable. If my friend had wanted to call his wood elves High Elves I wouldn’t have had a problem with it. Not to be racist but all elves look the same to me. Bretonian guy could have called his Brets Inner Circle Knights and played Empire (God knows they are strong enough as a core troop choice). Regardless, of all that is two of the players I know of that stopped Warhammer fantasy due to army imbalance. Even, the starter sets I think GW does a poor job of presenting armies that balance each other, because the from what I recall the few High Elves in the Island of Blood set is no match for the Skaven force in the set. New players that start that may become discouraged if they are the HE player and think that force really represents HE and stopped.

The same goes for 40k Dark Vengeance that CSM force with piddly cultists and a few models is NOT equally matched against the Dark Angels forces present. I do have a friend who stated a few editions ago in the starter box for 40k (again I don’t know this as I started Fantasy in 8th and 40k in 6th) the starter box for 40k had Dark Eldar and Space Marines. He said that him and his friend split the box, but evidently Dark Eldar kind of sucked especially compared to Space Marines. My friend eventually his colleague just stopped playing and gave his Eldar starter figures to him. Imbalance makes people stop playing, especially if they are newer to the hobby. I don’t think this should be hard to comprehend.

CariadocThorne
17-03-2015, 21:18
What is bad for the game is someone showing up at a tournament and getting almost completely wiped out by turn 3 of the game because his opponent knows how to castle in the corner as far back from the field as possible, has a vast amount of warmachines to bombard his opponent with, and is not a dummy when it comes to target selection. This does not take a high amount of skill to do.
It doesn't take much skill to do, but it does take skill to do well. It isn't a magic "I win" button, and a better player should beat it. Some armies will struggle against it, but it will struggle against some armies too (some of the more common wood elf lists are pretty much a hard counter for castled gunlines, especially if they take the lore of heavens). Having good and had match-ups is part of the game.


Daemons are jacked if they face High Elves. This needs to go.
The balance isn't perfect, and this is certainly an example of bad matchups going too far, but it could be fixed with a few changes to the high elf army book. No need to ruin the whole game over one excessively bad matchup.


Also, as I said I think the armies are so different in Warhammer that people taking supplements to their army to shore up the weakness will not take away the distinctness of the army. Empire with Dwarven Hammerers instead of halbediers and sabretusk as chaff will still play very and feel very differently than WOC with Beast of Nurgle as chaff and skull cannons and Dark Elf bolt throwers in it.

If there are limitations, I agree. As with the example of mixing the elves, there are fun options, and interesting tactical options, but at the end if the day it's still mostly expensive and relatively fragile elves.

I think not being able to completely to completely negate the weaknesses is important though, not just from a flavour perspective, but also from a tactical one.

Going completely unbound would make your problem worse.

You hate castled gunlines now? Wait untill they can mix and match the best of each shooty army. Even just mixing dwarves and wood elves would be infinitely worse than even the worst gunline imaginable under current rules. A lot of the tactics to counter castled gunlines would get harder to pull off too.

Stegadeth
17-03-2015, 21:25
If this is the case there's really nothing to be upset about. Warhammer Fantasy continues as the standard, End Times becomes entrenched as the "Apocalypse" variant, then they launch a round base skirmish game to offer something that competes with Warmachine/Hordes.

Everyone wins.
Unless an army becomes unplayable in its current form.

Fallstorm
17-03-2015, 21:32
Real Chris,
Your argument seems to be that armies should be well designed enough to function without needing allies, because each army while it has weakness is balanced against each other in some way and that essentially there should be no R/P/S match ups (if I am wrong in this correct me). I can agree with this but I don’t think GW will do this. I think for whatever reason (and your assessment that allowing everyone to have the same crutches means GW doesn’t really have to correct mistakes might very well be right) will go with unbound and allied rules.

To me game balance while maintaining differences between armies is the ultimate goal. I think unlike 40k the armies are distinct enough to play and feel differently even with unbound rules. I think you and I can agree that some degree of allies does make sense however even from a fluff standpoint (WOC and DOC, CSM and CD, etc.). If GW takes the easy path to reach game balance (unbound rules) I am okay with that, but I will agree with you that perfect game balance without any need for unbound/allies would be ideal from a player/consumers perspective. We both know that the chances of that happening is though, right?

Tau_player001
17-03-2015, 21:50
Heart: From time to time i check this forum to see what GW is doing. My intention is mostly because i had been advocating for a skirmish scale for WFB to introduce new players since long time ago. So the optimistic and nostalgic me reads this with a smile, hoping they can manage to make it work.

Head: GW has been putting out less quality products from a gaming perspective for many years ago, so, even if they release a skirmish game, with their current trend and obvious little or inefficient game testing, that the game will flop hard when compared to other more stablished skirmish games, except for the people who are just in love with the setting.

If they prices are reasonable, i would try it out, even if the game is not great i don't think it's a bad move. I guess i am selfish, since i sold my armies long time ago, and i don't really care about everything starting from all over. But i doubt that's what will happen. It would be like throwing a whole product line out of the window, so an "assisted life" for 8th (or whatever they release) Fantasy for a few years would be expected, where they just sell the models and forget about any update and focus on rebuilding their IP from the ground.

superczhunk
17-03-2015, 22:16
Jervis Johnson wrote an article in a White Dwarf around 5 years ago essentially saying that they write each army book/codex in a bubble. They don't compare and contrast armies or their units, and write rules according to the fluff. This makes for an incredible amount of imbalance, and makes absolutely no sense. You have an INTERACTIVE game of ~16 different armies, and you're not going to compare/contrast when writing them? After reading the article I have no faith in them whatsoever. If my gaming group has issues with Fantasy, I want us to fix it rather than abandon it.

Tyranno1
18-03-2015, 00:05
Hi Tyran01,
First, my list does include usually around 2 drops and vanguarding dogs and 1-2 drops of marauder horsemen of Slaanesh. Dwarven warmachines don’t need to focus on these units. They can have their thunderers and quarrellers focus on these units while their warmachines like organ guns and cannons focus on more threat worthy targets like Chimeras and so forth.
I appreciate your perspective but I am not going to turn this into a thread on WOC (I know there have been other threads for army problems), but it pretty much is a Rock/Paper/Scissors match up and even the Swedish comp system feedback results acknowledges this to a degree with Dwarves and Empire being one of the hardest match ups for WOC. Other armies have their rough match ups also (Daemons suffer when facing High Elves with Banner of the World Dragon). Allied rules and unbound is a quick, easy, and viable way to resolve this issue.
In regards, to your 40k question yes, your answer is to take Imperial Knights and be able to combat what your opponent is doing or a) continue to get beat but be happy in sticking to your principles or b) don’t play competitively and play with a friend with lists agreed upon by you two beforehand. I don’t see a problem with this. It is like if I had a problem facing troll hordes and someone told me a way around this was to utilize flaming attacks, and I declined to do this because I think other items are more “cool” or flavorful to my army than flaming attacks, but then I go out and get my army stomped (pun intended) by trolls. Who do I have to blame but myself for not making optimal choices? Answer: No one.

Fair. Its normally what I do to combat them and I have yet to have it fail....and I play waaay too often vs dwarves -_-.

I still point towards daft armies of 100% Daemon Princes or 100% Bolt Throwers (for example), for Unbound being a bad idea. As, while unbound might seem like a good idea for competitive lists, it is an absolutely appalling idea for anyone who does not play WAAC or competitive.
As you can roll up for a game at your local club, looking for a fun/thematic game and see only this "fly in the face of the fluff" style armies.


And this is where the biggest problem lies with unbound. When it is used vs people who prefer the game for its background (and trust me, some people have no "off button" for playing WAAC style). This leads to pick-me-up games being completely one-sided.
No matter what state the game is in, people who want to play WAAC can and will be able to, but scaling the level of stupid things you can do up only makes things worse overall.
The skill in the game comes from working within limits. No limits, no skill.


Lastly, so the game has hard matchups. You do realize it was never ever built to be used as a competitive system?
And more recently they seem to have twigged to this. I mean, when you HAVE to buy a big expensive model just to remain in the game competitively:
1: People are being taken for a ride.
2: They may not be able to balance things. But they can overbalance very well.

Treating this game like chess is in general, a bad idea. This is not chess, this never should be chess, and I hope it will never be chess.
Now. Do not take this the wrong way. But you seem to be after a fair competitive system. Why not just play chess(Using WoC figures)?

Stegadeth
18-03-2015, 00:06
Jervis Johnson wrote an article in a White Dwarf around 5 years ago essentially saying that they write each army book/codex in a bubble.
Truly absurd, I agree.


They don't compare and contrast armies or their units, and write rules according to the fluff.
It's utterly ridiculous if true, completely agree.


This makes for an incredible amount of imbalance, and makes absolutely no sense.
None whatsoever. You are completely right.


You have an INTERACTIVE game of ~16 different armies, and you're not going to compare/contrast when writing them?


After reading the article I have no faith in them whatsoever.
I had none left but my loathing has increased even further, reinforcing my choice to give up on Games Workshop.


If my gaming group has issues with Fantasy, I want us to fix it rather than abandon it.
Absolut-- Say what now? Ok, not picking on you, but I really do not understand this sentiment. You would pay good money to buy a broken system and then spend the time to make it workable? Is it nostalgia that drives such a choice? Habit? I am just really curious and not being a pedantic jerk here. I wouldn't pick on anyone who possibly has a screen name inspired by one of the greatest bands ever, or who is a fans of CZ's fine firearms. Cheers!

Fallstorm
18-03-2015, 00:46
Fair. Its normally what I do to combat them and I have yet to have it fail....and I play waaay too often vs dwarves -_-.

I still point towards daft armies of 100% Daemon Princes or 100% Bolt Throwers (for example), for Unbound being a bad idea. As, while unbound might seem like a good idea for competitive lists, it is an absolutely appalling idea for anyone who does not play WAAC or competitive.
As you can roll up for a game at your local club, looking for a fun/thematic game and see only this "fly in the face of the fluff" style armies.


And this is where the biggest problem lies with unbound. When it is used vs people who prefer the game for its background (and trust me, some people have no "off button" for playing WAAC style). This leads to pick-me-up games being completely one-sided.
No matter what state the game is in, people who want to play WAAC can and will be able to, but scaling the level of stupid things you can do up only makes things worse overall.
The skill in the game comes from working within limits. No limits, no skill.


Lastly, so the game has hard matchups. You do realize it was never ever built to be used as a competitive system?
And more recently they seem to have twigged to this. I mean, when you HAVE to buy a big expensive model just to remain in the game competitively:
1: People are being taken for a ride.
2: They may not be able to balance things. But they can overbalance very well.

Treating this game like chess is in general, a bad idea. This is not chess, this never should be chess, and I hope it will never be chess.
Now. Do not take this the wrong way. But you seem to be after a fair competitive system. Why not just play chess(Using WoC figures)?
I play way too often versus dwarves as well and skill level being equal that is an uphill battle against WOC in favor of dwarves. Here you have an army who only weakness was mobility but since they got the new book that has been corrected as they now have units that can vanguard, they have flying artillery that can always march. They Str 5 armor piercing artillery that hits on 2+ in addition to cannons. Then when you get to them they have good warriors that are often Stubborn on LD10 wielding great weapons. No, balance was put into this army. The only “Flaw” the dwarves have is that they don’t have access to magic, but then this is not really a flaw because while they don’t have access to magic they can shut down a magic phase with ease and take multiple items that eat spells. For WOC the flaw is supposed to be shooting but we don’t have an item that just shuts down the magic phase and statistically the Blasted Standard as worded is a hindrance not a help.



For fun/themetic games you and a friend should be agreeing beforehand on what units can and cannot be taken. Yes, perhaps this makes some random pick-up game harder to get but this should be resolved via communication. Most local gaming stores have message boards, etcetera. If you are just looking for a friendly game go on there and start a group. In the group state what your aims for the game are and are not and that way everyone knows to make a fluffy list, but on a competitive level the game should not suffer due to imbalanced mechanics.

The game may have never meant to be played at a competitive level but the fact is the game is played at a competitive level. There is a Master’s circuit for this game in both Europe and the United States. ETC teams for Warhammer so despite what was intended for the game the reality is very different and we as players have to face the reality. Yes, there are hard match ups the problem is a lot of the hard match ups in WHFB are just down right brutal and nearly auto-losses like Daemons versus Banner of the World Dragon. This needs to change.

“Why not play chess using (WOC figures)?” I am not offending by this but this argument is hyperbole. If I wanted to play chess I would play chess. I play Warhammer because in addition to the various armies I like the history, the world, and the flavor of the game. That being said, you can keep all of that and make a balanced rules mechanic. You know, there are other miniature game companies that make miniatures of various different factions and those games are fairly balanced to Infinity would be one of these games and from what I have heard Warmahordes is actually fairly well balanced, and X-Wing too for that matter.

The bearded one
18-03-2015, 01:10
Jervis Johnson wrote an article in a White Dwarf around 5 years ago essentially saying that they write each army book/codex in a bubble. They don't compare and contrast armies or their units, and write rules according to the fluff. This makes for an incredible amount of imbalance, and makes absolutely no sense. You have an INTERACTIVE game of ~16 different armies, and you're not going to compare/contrast when writing them? After reading the article I have no faith in them whatsoever. If my gaming group has issues with Fantasy, I want us to fix it rather than abandon it.

Did he not perhaps mean that while designing an armybook they didn't pay attention to whatever the state of the meta was at that particular time? Because the armybooks of those 16 factions change all the time and the meta changes with them (and editionchanges). You could write an armybook, keeping in mind what kind of units are popular and in what way and size those tend to be used in the general meta, and have that armybook become antiquated really fast once the meta changes. Writing an army's rules basing its external balance on specific elements from other books that might change soon can cause trouble.


That's not to say they're not really horrible with their ruleswriting and internal balance on a very regular basis, I'm just trying to reinterpret what he said, so that it doesn't sound like an overly stupid statement.

Tyranno1
18-03-2015, 01:12
I play way too often versus dwarves as well and skill level being equal that is an uphill battle against WOC in favor of dwarves. Here you have an army who only weakness was mobility but since they got the new book that has been corrected as they now have units that can vanguard, they have flying artillery that can always march. They Str 5 armor piercing artillery that hits on 2+ in addition to cannons. Then when you get to them they have good warriors that are often Stubborn on LD10 wielding great weapons. No, balance was put into this army. The only “Flaw” the dwarves have is that they don’t have access to magic, but then this is not really a flaw because while they don’t have access to magic they can shut down a magic phase with ease and take multiple items that eat spells. For WOC the flaw is supposed to be shooting but we don’t have an item that just shuts down the magic phase and statistically the Blasted Standard as worded is a hindrance not a help.



For fun/themetic games you and a friend should be agreeing beforehand on what units can and cannot be taken. Yes, perhaps this makes some random pick-up game harder to get but this should be resolved via communication. Most local gaming stores have message boards, etcetera. If you are just looking for a friendly game go on there and start a group. In the group state what your aims for the game are and are not and that way everyone knows to make a fluffy list, but on a competitive level the game should not suffer due to imbalanced mechanics.

The game may have never meant to be played at a competitive level but the fact is the game is played at a competitive level. There is a Master’s circuit for this game in both Europe and the United States. ETC teams for Warhammer so despite what was intended for the game the reality is very different and we as players have to face the reality. Yes, there are hard match ups the problem is a lot of the hard match ups in WHFB are just down right brutal and nearly auto-losses like Daemons versus Banner of the World Dragon. This needs to change.

“Why not play chess using (WOC figures)?” I am not offending by this but this argument is hyperbole. If I wanted to play chess I would play chess. I play Warhammer because in addition to the various armies I like the history, the world, and the flavor of the game. That being said, you can keep all of that and make a balanced rules mechanic. You know, there are other miniature game companies that make miniatures of various different factions and those games are fairly balanced to Infinity would be one of these games and from what I have heard Warmahordes is actually fairly well balanced, and X-Wing too for that matter.

It is an uphill battle, but not as bad as flat out rock/paper/scissors. But thats kinda what makes warhammer warhammer. No army is the same. All are different all play different. That is the beauty of it.
I do not own a dwarf armybook, so I cannot argue further on how "bad" its balance.

Also some people do not have the time/ability to organize things extensively beforehand. Back when I used to work near a club I could not organize a game as I wasnt left enough time between leaving work and getting there. This left me at the mercy of whoever I had to play against. Sometimes I couldnt even get a game.

Also. Who is to say that at the end of unbound. When players find the best each army can do with it, that one wont still be miles more broken than another? What then? You are still left at the same point you are now.
Personally the banner of the world dragon is awfully written though, and is pretty much an example of idiotic writing.
Also, as far as I had seen it, until ET came along most people were finding 8th Edition to be very balanced (If you played 7th, you would know what truly unbalanced armies were....*shudder*).


Well since you like the armies background/history/flavor, why play with a ruleset that gives all that up completely and flies in its face (Unbound)? And if you prefer to win why play WoC and not just pick the best army? You cannot have your cake and eat it in this situation.

Tau_player001
18-03-2015, 01:15
Real Chris,
Your argument seems to be that armies should be well designed enough to function without needing allies, because each army while it has weakness is balanced against each other in some way and that essentially there should be no R/P/S match ups (if I am wrong in this correct me). I can agree with this but I don’t think GW will do this. I think for whatever reason (and your assessment that allowing everyone to have the same crutches means GW doesn’t really have to correct mistakes might very well be right) will go with unbound and allied rules.

To me game balance while maintaining differences between armies is the ultimate goal. I think unlike 40k the armies are distinct enough to play and feel differently even with unbound rules. I think you and I can agree that some degree of allies does make sense however even from a fluff standpoint (WOC and DOC, CSM and CD, etc.). If GW takes the easy path to reach game balance (unbound rules) I am okay with that, but I will agree with you that perfect game balance without any need for unbound/allies would be ideal from a player/consumers perspective. We both know that the chances of that happening is though, right?

Allies on a permanently switching meta is a recipe for disaster, since any balance fix it would bring, it's merely a bandaid. It forces players into playing/buying units that they might not enjoy, and since the meta changes, no ally of your choice will remain as the balance fix long enough to justify buying them purely to fix the issues with a system poorly playtested.

Rock/paper/scissors is a perfectly fine system with its introduced as shades of grey that overlap instead of hardcounters (banner of the world dragon for example). How to fix this issue is not to allow allies for everyone, it is to have a sensible and well supported game development team, who is given the tools to playtest effectively their releases, are given player feedback which may be useful and more importantly, organize tournaments which not only encourages community to play your game more, but to give you a way for objective data gathering on how much ups are being played out, winrates, etc... Basically, the ground pillars for game balance comes from big sample pools to be able to use the appropiate tools to fix the game, instead of just using a hammer (chaos demons 40k, the most short lived codex ever) or just flat out ignoring it (chaos daemons - Matt Ward, or just World dragon banner).

We can discuss all day long about how to fix X, but a game developer who is given the tools and has the talent will find a more elegant solution all the time. The problem is that in GW there are no talented games designers (because anyone with talent and passion towards their job, would had left long time ago in such atmosphere), they don't playtest their crap and they don't organize or promote tournaments to gather information on the state of the game.


Did he not perhaps mean that while designing an armybook they didn't pay attention to whatever the state of the meta was at that particular time? Because the armybooks of those 16 factions change all the time and the meta changes with them (and editionchanges). You could write an armybook, keeping in mind what kind of units are popular and in what way and size those tend to be used in the general meta, and have that armybook become antiquated really fast once the meta changes. Writing an army's rules basing its external balance on specific elements from other books that might change soon can cause trouble.


That's not to say they're not really horrible with their ruleswriting and internal balance on a very regular basis, I'm just trying to reinterpret what he said, so that it doesn't sound like an overly stupid statement.
First i apologize for answering to something not directed at me. I didn't read that quote so i can't really know. I don't know how codex are written nowadays, but back in the day, codexes would had been written long before their release. Their schedule for releases was always pretty bad for a proper game development.

The one army at a time is just too big of an introduction to really work. A more sensible approach would had been to release every army with some basic units (alas 6th edition), and from there, start adding units as they design, playtest and gather data. Not only is better for the players (which have a sense that they are not always playing the same ), but it makes much easier the job at game balance, giving a much more fluid meta.

Now, it would be require a compromise from customers to accept that the army book would be much more scarce, while they see how the game is going and start re-introducing some of the units that couldn't make it yet, and the compromise from games workshop to release rules freely (lol).

But it's GW, and i have very little faith on what they would do here. I would really love if they started to take an approach as a gaming company, but the cynic on me says that they will just transform End of Times as Apocalypse, 8th as regular warhammer fantasy which will be eventually discontinued if it doesn't improve on sales, and a skirmish ****** rulebook as what happens after the end of times.

Fallstorm
18-03-2015, 01:51
It is an uphill battle, but not as bad as flat out rock/paper/scissors. But thats kinda what makes warhammer warhammer. No army is the same. All are different all play different. That is the beauty of it.
I do not own a dwarf armybook, so I cannot argue further on how "bad" its balance.

Also some people do not have the time/ability to organize things extensively beforehand. Back when I used to work near a club I could not organize a game as I wasnt left enough time between leaving work and getting there. This left me at the mercy of whoever I had to play against. Sometimes I couldnt even get a game.

Also. Who is to say that at the end of unbound. When players find the best each army can do with it, that one wont still be miles more broken than another? What then? You are still left at the same point you are now.
Personally the banner of the world dragon is awfully written though, and is pretty much an example of idiotic writing.
Also, as far as I had seen it, until ET came along most people were finding 8th Edition to be very balanced (If you played 7th, you would know what truly unbalanced armies were....*shudder*).


Well since you like the armies background/history/flavor, why play with a ruleset that gives all that up completely and flies in its face (Unbound)? And if you prefer to win why play WoC and not just pick the best army? You cannot have your cake and eat it in this situation.

-I can’t speak for 7th edition as I started in 8th. The fact that 7th edition was more unbalanced than 8th edition was so therefore we shouldn’t correct the imbalances in 8th is not valid. Every edition should try to improve over the previous one.
-At the end of unbound I don’t think things will be unbalanced because everyone will have access to everything.
-Of course I can have my cake and eat it too. What is the point of having cake if I can’t eat it? Unbound does not break the fluff it enhances it. It enhances it by 1) allowing people to come up with a narrative for whatever allies/units they include in their army and the more unique the allies the more unique the narrative. 2) It reflects what is in the fluff. For example, the books talk about The Empire having Chaos cults so when I put Pink Steam Tanks with disco balls on top of them in my WOC army list you know they are Empire defectors who worship Slaanesh and is fighting for Chaos. The Party Train!

Tyranno1
18-03-2015, 02:03
-I can’t speak for 7th edition as I started in 8th. The fact that 7th edition was more unbalanced than 8th edition was so therefore we shouldn’t correct the imbalances in 8th is not valid. Every edition should try to improve over the previous one.
-At the end of unbound I don’t think things will be unbalanced because everyone will have access to everything.
-Of course I can have my cake and eat it too. What is the point of having cake if I can’t eat it? Unbound does not break the fluff it enhances it. It enhances it by 1) allowing people to come up with a narrative for whatever allies/units they include in their army and the more unique the allies the more unique the narrative. 2) It reflects what is in the fluff. For example, the books talk about The Empire having Chaos cults so when I put Pink Steam Tanks with disco balls on top of them in my WOC army list you know they are Empire defectors who worship Slaanesh and is fighting for Chaos. The Party Train!

My point was that 8th is very balanced.
Unbound is you have no limits in your book/faction. Warriors have all beasts/skaven/daemons with no limits. All elves have no limits. There WILL be a top dog here. Its not everything has everything.

You may do that, but trust me, 99% of people who want to use unbound in a tournament setting will not do so. I know alot of players who go to tournament ans they will think nothing of stripping the fluff naked and ordering a lapdance without a second thought.

Tyranno1
18-03-2015, 02:03
*Double post*

sixfthoneybadger
18-03-2015, 02:36
I just enjoy reading a WoC fan complain about someone else being OP'd lol.

Fallstorm
18-03-2015, 03:41
I just enjoy reading a WoC fan complain about someone else being OP'd lol.

The facts speak for themselves WOC have not done well in a tournament in a long while. We just had Brawler Bash up in mid NC. This is a big tournament in the SE area. Looking at the results the highest rated WOC player came in 16th place. Ogre Kingdoms (which I have longed said is one of the top 3 most powerful armies were in the top 10 along with Elves and Empire). Back in the days of Ard’ Boyz for the last few years before that closed WOC despite being one of the most popular armies wasn’t even making to the final rounds. Why is that?
Because look at WOC core unit stat line in a vacuum, but the fact is when the toys are pulled out WOC hardest stuff does not hit as hard as what other armies can bring.

Again, take Dwarves. Here you have an army that has incredible shooting (2+ to hit artillery that is STR 5 armor piercing) plus cannons and stone throwers. They have good and fairly cheap and durable (T5) flying chaff that can always march and drop stone throwers and other artillery on their opponents. The one phase they don’t have access to (the magic phase) they can almost completely shut down and take your spells for the game. Then when do finally get to them they are Stubborn on Ld9 and have a 5+ parry save just like Tzeentch Warriors only WOC are paying 17 pts a model for that. So yeah, I damn right a WOC player is complaining.

Empire-cheap wizards, a buff wagon that acts a chariot has a bound spell, grants a +1 bonus to hit to all units, their The Empire troops have access to cold blooded rules on LD9-10 depending on who they choose as a general, they have steam tanks (10 wounds, T6 1+ armor save) monstrosities and can afford to take 2 of them in a 2500 pt list. They have demigriffs that are almost equal to skull crushers some would say better since they are not frenzied and can’t be bated as easily, let's not forget great cannons and volley guns. Yeah, it is no surprise why these armies like Empire are doing well in the masters and at tournaments. As far as Dwarves other armies don’t worry about them because if you are any other army like Ogre Kingdoms, Empire, Skaven, etc you have all the tools you need to easily deal with dwarves, but WOC just has to hope they can make it across that field.

Basically with WOC you are choosing to play an army that is almost always outnumbered, out-gunned, and out- magicked (because you have armies like Empire with their buff wagon dice giver, and dark elf sac daggers, and so forth), and please don’t give me that “Well, they only use magic so that they can fight as well as WOC” bit, because here is the thing if you are fighting just as good as me, plus you outnumber me and you have artillery support then guess what? I’m ******* losing. Heck, even with Chaos Legions there are still some gaps to fill in the army.
So, yes, I am interested in seeing what WHFB 9 brings. I hope it adds allies and unbound so that I and other armies that have gaps can fill them. I want to look at dwarven gunlines and steam tanks the same way every other army does and not give a crap about them, because we have cannons and know the magic formula (“10 inches from the back!”) like everyone else instead of hoping I can just chaff it up with dogs long enough to take down their cold blooded units that matter.

I say bring on 9th edition and unbound. If worst comes to worst and it is not someone cup of tea by all accounts they can play the "reality bubble" that is 8th edition with all the R/P/S match ups that entails.

Fallstorm
18-03-2015, 03:47
My point was that 8th is very balanced.
Unbound is you have no limits in your book/faction. Warriors have all beasts/skaven/daemons with no limits. All elves have no limits. There WILL be a top dog here. Its not everything has everything.

You may do that, but trust me, 99% of people who want to use unbound in a tournament setting will not do so. I know alot of players who go to tournament ans they will think nothing of stripping the fluff naked and ordering a lapdance without a second thought.You and I disagree on how much WH 8 is balanced. Again, just because it is more balanced than a prior edition does not make it balanced. It just means it is not as bad as its predecessor. To me saying 8th edition is balanced just because it is better than 7th is like John Gotti claiming to be a pacifist just because he hasn't killed as many people as Al Capone.

kylek2235
18-03-2015, 03:56
The facts speak for themselves WOC have not done well in a tournament in a long while. We just had Brawler Bash up in mid NC. This is a big tournament in the SE area. Looking at the results the highest rated WOC player came in 16th place. Ogre Kingdoms (which I have longed said is one of the top 3 most powerful armies were in the top 10 along with Elves and Empire). Back in the days of Ard’ Boyz for the last few years before that closed WOC despite being one of the most popular armies wasn’t even making to the final rounds. Why is that?
Because look at WOC core unit stat line in a vacuum, but the fact is when the toys are pulled out WOC hardest stuff does not hit as hard as what other armies can bring.

Again, take Dwarves. Here you have an army that has incredible shooting (2+ to hit artillery that is STR 5 armor piercing) plus cannons and stone throwers. They have good and fairly cheap and durable (T5) flying chaff that can always march and drop stone throwers and other artillery on their opponents. The one phase they don’t have access to (the magic phase) they can almost completely shut down and take your spells for the game. Then when do finally get to them they are Stubborn on Ld9 and have a 5+ parry save just like Tzeentch Warriors only WOC are paying 17 pts a model for that. So yeah, I damn right a WOC player is complaining.

Empire-cheap wizards, a buff wagon that acts a chariot has a bound spell, grants a +1 bonus to hit to all units, their The Empire troops have access to cold blooded rules on LD9-10 depending on who they choose as a general, they have steam tanks (10 wounds, T6 1+ armor save) monstrosities and can afford to take 2 of them in a 2500 pt list. They have demigriffs that are almost equal to skull crushers some would say better since they are not frenzied and can’t be bated as easily, let's not forget great cannons and volley guns. Yeah, it is no surprise why these armies like Empire are doing well in the masters and at tournaments. As far as Dwarves other armies don’t worry about them because if you are any other army like Ogre Kingdoms, Empire, Skaven, etc you have all the tools you need to easily deal with dwarves, but WOC just has to hope they can make it across that field.

Basically with WOC you are choosing to play an army that is almost always outnumbered, out-gunned, and out- magicked (because you have armies like Empire with their buff wagon dice giver, and dark elf sac daggers, and so forth), and please don’t give me that “Well, they only use magic so that they can fight as well as WOC” bit, because here is the thing if you are fighting just as good as me, plus you outnumber me and you have artillery support then guess what? I’m ******* losing. Heck, even with Chaos Legions there are still some gaps to fill in the army.
So, yes, I am interested in seeing what WHFB 9 brings. I hope it adds allies and unbound so that I and other armies that have gaps can fill them. I want to look at dwarven gunlines and steam tanks the same way every other army does and not give a crap about them, because we have cannons and know the magic formula (“10 inches from the back!”) like everyone else instead of hoping I can just chaff it up with dogs long enough to take down their cold blooded units that matter.

I say bring on 9th edition and unbound. If worst comes to worst and it is not someone cup of tea by all accounts they can play the "reality bubble" that is 8th edition with all the R/P/S match ups that entails.

Not to shoot down the central tenant of your argument, and since most people on here probably don't know, but the scoring system for Brawler's encourages a style of play that has nothing to with Warhammer. Half of the Warhammer armies are simply worthless in that system. Still a fun tourny though. Congrats Lord Inquisitor!

As for WoC being terrible: please expand your tournament search. They do plenty well for themselves, especially in uncomped environments.

Ogres being the best, I'll take that though. :)

Fallstorm
18-03-2015, 04:39
Not to shoot down the central tenant of your argument, and since most people on here probably don't know, but the scoring system for Brawler's encourages a style of play that has nothing to with Warhammer. Half of the Warhammer armies are simply worthless in that system. Still a fun tourny though. Congrats Lord Inquisitor!

As for WoC being terrible: please expand your tournament search. They do plenty well for themselves, especially in uncomped environments.

Ogres being the best, I'll take that though. :)
I am looking at WOC results over the past 2 years in the Master’s Circuit. WOC were good when their book first hit, but have waned greatly and most competitively players (even those who jumped on the WOC bandwagon) have abandoned warriors for other armies like Dark Elves.
Brawler Bash does have an unusual scoring system. First, it is the most uncomped event in the region and the vast majority of battle points are based on what you kill. Losing at Brawler Bash isn’t such as big deal as long as you kill a lot of stuff. In fact, the ideal scenario would be for you and your opponent to annihilate each other and get maximum points for the round.
Given all that if WOC is so hard, If it such a killy army as is the knee-jerk reaction most people have whenever WOC is mentioned than WOC should have owned that event. AS it stands out of about 65-70 people the highest ranking WOC was number 16. How well did WOC fair at the 2014 U.S. Masters in terms of rankings? How well did WOC do even with their old book in the last few years of Ard’ Boyz?
I will agree Ogre Kingdoms are strong. They are another army like dwarves and empire that virtually have no weak phases (strong movement M6 and good chaff in the sabre tusk, good magic-hellheart, spells that grant regen to whole units), strong shooting (iron blasters and lead belchers), and brutal in close combat, but yep WOC are OP HA!!

kylek2235
18-03-2015, 06:33
"In the Master's Circuit?" So you mean the feeder tournaments instead of the tournament itself. I'm not sure what results you're looking at, but they're not our region. They took 3rd and 6th and Best General at Lonewolf last year, finished 4th and 7th at Rock Wars and won Alamo free and clear. Generally two in the top ten like clockwork here. But like I said, we're generally an uncomped region.

The 'Ard Boyz, as far as I know, wasn't around for the current WoC incarnation. I have to admit though, I was only involved in the first one and then declined qualifying invitations after that. I think you're implying that the older book was stronger than the current, which I'm not so sure of. The old book was strong, but it wasn't DoC strong, which took a ludicrous amount of 'ard boyz awards anyway. This current book has a much better "reach out and punch you in the face" feel to it. The fact that it can build such a strong "win in 3 turns or less" army turns a lot of people off because of the generally lopsided nature of their victories in quick fashion. Unfortunately, newer or less experiences players fall victim to this a disproportionate amount of times. It can definitely make for a rough game, so it pulls a lot of hate.

As for the US Masters, it's an comped event. It's impossible to see every combination of nasty you can build there on purpose. The comping is intended to create army diversity rather than every list being "I take my lvl 4 nurgle dameon prince, chariots, chimeras and Skullcrushers for the winz yo!" Whether that's successful is debatable and an entirely different subject, but comping systems don't always fall equally across every army. By blunting the "win in 3 turns or less" builds, it hurt their most efficient builds and really exposed the army in certain match ups. We had three WoC players qualify for our Masters team. One chose to use Chaos Dwarves, one High Elves, and the other had to drop at the last second. The WoC lack of success at this event is just as much a condemnation of Swedish comp as it would be the WoC book itself, wouldn't you say? :)

I heard the top Ogre at the Masters didn't have a Hellheart, almost never cast spells from his maw wizard, killed his Ironblaster by turn 2 in almost every game, and avoided combat like the plague. Burn the witch I say!

Fallstorm
18-03-2015, 12:03
"In the Master's Circuit?" So you mean the feeder tournaments instead of the tournament itself. I'm not sure what results you're looking at, but they're not our region. They took 3rd and 6th and Best General at Lonewolf last year, finished 4th and 7th at Rock Wars and won Alamo free and clear. Generally two in the top ten like clockwork here. But like I said, we're generally an uncomped region.

The 'Ard Boyz, as far as I know, wasn't around for the current WoC incarnation. I have to admit though, I was only involved in the first one and then declined qualifying invitations after that. I think you're implying that the older book was stronger than the current, which I'm not so sure of. The old book was strong, but it wasn't DoC strong, which took a ludicrous amount of 'ard boyz awards anyway. This current book has a much better "reach out and punch you in the face" feel to it. The fact that it can build such a strong "win in 3 turns or less" army turns a lot of people off because of the generally lopsided nature of their victories in quick fashion. Unfortunately, newer or less experiences players fall victim to this a disproportionate amount of times. It can definitely make for a rough game, so it pulls a lot of hate.

As for the US Masters, it's an comped event. It's impossible to see every combination of nasty you can build there on purpose. The comping is intended to create army diversity rather than every list being "I take my lvl 4 nurgle dameon prince, chariots, chimeras and Skullcrushers for the winz yo!" Whether that's successful is debatable and an entirely different subject, but comping systems don't always fall equally across every army. By blunting the "win in 3 turns or less" builds, it hurt their most efficient builds and really exposed the army in certain match ups. We had three WoC players qualify for our Masters team. One chose to use Chaos Dwarves, one High Elves, and the other had to drop at the last second. The WoC lack of success at this event is just as much a condemnation of Swedish comp as it would be the WoC book itself, wouldn't you say? :)

I heard the top Ogre at the Masters didn't have a Hellheart, almost never cast spells from his maw wizard, killed his Ironblaster by turn 2 in almost every game, and avoided combat like the plague. Burn the witch I say!
I am looking at results from the Northeast and Mid Atlantic (I don’t know about the West Coast). I have to ask in an uncomped environment if the WOC Nurgle Daemon Prince and 2 Chimera build is still viable there has the meta kept up with the times, because along the Eastern Sea board that list (Called the 1.0 Warrior list) went out of fashion rather quickly because everyone figured out how to deal with the Daemon Prince, who is actually very fragile with his 5+ ward and 4 Wounds. The build very rapidly shifted to the “2.0 Warriors list” which is the same but include a Daemon Prince of Slaanesh. This build provided a little more protection because you could cast the random movement spells on warmachines but then the number or warmachines increased to the point where it was no longer viable. I can honestly say no WOC is running that netlist anymore because the DP is dead pretty much as soon as he hits the table. There is simply too many counters and too much firepower on the table now. The best warriors have is MSU list, but honestly they don’t do it as well as armies like Elves and Dark Elves with their warlocks and the Tzeentch Star which is slow and easily avoidable if durable. They will include the 2 “unkillable” character builds but those 2 characters can’t float an entire army. I just find it amazing that the basic 1.0 list is still running in that area.

Also, my point with the old book wasn’t that the old book is stronger per se. My point with the old book was that with that book and even pulling out all the “broken” things in it like the Chosenstar WOC with the old book were not making into the finals at all at Ard Boyz because compared to what other armies had their nastiest wasn’t that nasty. For example, the chosenstar was slow as hell and easy to avoid and chaff up, and their double hellcannon doom and darkness fear banner trick only worked on some armies as a lot of armies are immune for whatever reason (frenzy, ITP, etc) to panic, which left the Throgg troll block and that had a number of weaknesses as well. When compared to what Dark Elves used to be like chucking 100 dice to get spells through, What the Graveguard used to be like, WOC just like now really didn’t match up overall. Were there some exceptional players yes, but then every army has those even subpar books like wood elves.

Bloodknight
18-03-2015, 12:13
I do have a friend who stated a few editions ago in the starter box for 40k (again I don’t know this as I started Fantasy in 8th and 40k in 6th) the starter box for 40k had Dark Eldar and Space Marines. He said that him and his friend split the box, but evidently Dark Eldar kind of sucked especially compared to Space Marines.

That was because the Space Marines got about 50% more points and a vehicle with 36" range why the Dark Eldar were all a dudes on foot with a maximum range of 24". That was the worst starter box they ever made because it was so awfully lopsided. That said, it helped me a lot with collecting a huge Dark Eldar army because people basically gave the DE Warrior sprues away for nothing. As it turned out later, their codex might as well not have been called Dark Eldar, but LOL! Spacemarines!

sixfthoneybadger
18-03-2015, 12:18
Juggernauts, daemon princes, chimeras, and vanguarding marauder horsemen cruise missiles are in an opponents face Turn 2!!! Even if they army is on the back line. A Deamon Prince comes over 6 dice on bubbling Choir equals a bunch dead dwarf artillery!!! A unit of 3 juggies with a darn near unkillable BSB 1+4+ with charmed shield that ignores 1st wound on a 2+. Nurgle warriors marching across and making contact by turn 4 to mop up because nothing has been shot at them due to higher priorities and you hit them on 5s!!! Yea poor chaos. Didn't even mention the Hellcannon that shoots as it moves and a cannon shot it either hits it or the crew because its not a mount! Yea it's rough being chaos... only because you have so much to choose from. It's not the army list it's the general. I play WoC, OK, Dwarves, and DE. All have their strengths, my WoC I can field so nasty that its not even fun to play. I even forgot all core chariots!!!

CariadocThorne
18-03-2015, 13:14
Your argument seems to basically be: "my army has weaknesses and bad matchups, and it doesn'tdo particularly well in certain comped environments or environments with non-standard scoring, so unbound is the only solution."

Nevermind that the fast WoC list is probably on most players top 5 list of hard lists to play against.

Why do you think unbound is the solution?

If there was a real problem with WoC (there isn't, every army has weaknesses and bad matchup), surely the best solution would be to fix the problems with that army?

Unbound is a horrible system, which totally ruins the chance of a good even game for anyone who doesn't run a heavily optimized netlist. At least in the current system it is possible to run other lists and have a chance of winning, or at least getting an enjoyable game.

It is bad for casual gaming, bad for competitive gaming, and it's only really good if you have a friendly group of like-minded players who want to play unusual themed or fun lists (like representing a dark elf slaneeshi cult with a mix of dark elves and slaneeshi daemons), and for people who want to run the most optimized list they can which auto-wins against any "normal" list.

For example, I currently run a wood elf list with relatively little shooting, no shadow or high magic, and with a treeman and two large infantry blocks for a much more conventional, combat based army than most wood elf lists. It is quite a departure from the standard, withering + tons of arrows or total avoidance styles which wood elves do best. I still win with it though, even against optimized competitive lists (although some are very hard for me to beat).

If unbound comes in, the optimized lists will get stronger, and balanced, non optimized lists like mine will never be able to win.

Montegue
18-03-2015, 15:28
Again, take Dwarves. Here you have an army that has incredible shooting (2+ to hit artillery that is STR 5 armor piercing) plus cannons and stone throwers. They have good and fairly cheap and durable (T5) flying chaff that can always march and drop stone throwers and other artillery on their opponents. The one phase they don’t have access to (the magic phase) they can almost completely shut down and take your spells for the game. Then when do finally get to them they are Stubborn on Ld9 and have a 5+ parry save just like Tzeentch Warriors only WOC are paying 17 pts a model for that. So yeah, I damn right a WOC player is complaining.

This is absolute madness.

The army can have incredible shooting in the form of a rare choice that costs, if you want to start at a 2+ to hit, over 200 points per model (125, 25, 70). So, for the low low price of 400+ points you can have two such nasty little monsters in your army. Great investment, but also nearly the price of a tricked out daemon prince. Super powerful, and also super vulnerable to shooting, the wide variety of flying threats, magic missiles, and enemy artillery (for example, mobile cannons). I have no sympathy for your complaints about dwarf shooting when you have an unkillable flying lord that can easily and singlehandedly wipe out an entire artillery battery.

You're right - we have very good flying chaff. It's actually the only chaff we can have that's worth a damn, and it's a bargain at 80 points. You're wrong about it marching and using artillery every turn. That's a Gyrobomber, which competes with the aforementioned Organ Guns for points, costs 125, and is thus not necessarily a good chaff investment. Gyrocopters cannot march and shoot their template, though they can drop a single bomb once a game. The Copters are amazing. You're right. We have one amazing model.

Your claims about the magic phase are completely pants, however. Dwarfs cannot shut down the magic phase unless you roll very poorly for Winds. Yes, we *can* destroy a spell (we're not the only ones. High elves have something that can do that, as well). We channel dispel dice now, which means we have little or no bonus dice to work with. Anyone who knows what they are doing during a magic phase will get 1-2 spells off against dwarfs every turn, assuming decent rolls.

Now on to your final claim. Which is, altogether, ridiculous on it's face. Dwarfs do have easy access to stubborn. However, there's not a single dwarf model in the game that's got the ability to outfight a chaos warrior pound for pound. We get a 5+ parry on turn 1, unless you're talking about ironbreakers. You, however, have access to marks, 2 attacks per model on your core, a base save that's as good as the strongest armor built by any race (gromril) on every Warrior of Chaos, init 5, s4 base on Warriors, t4 base, and access to amazing weapon options that turn your bog standard Warrior of Chaos into a meat grinder. Halbred + Mark of Nurgle means only a Dwarf Lord or Thane can hit your guys on a 4, and everyone else needs a 5 or better to hit. You're hitting first at S5 with 2 attacks per model, WS5, and whatever benefit you might get from your magical standard.


Your Lore of Slannesh can autowin games. Your Daemon Princes can single handedly destroy entire units of my infantry (yes, even Hammerers. I've now had a single Nurgle Prince kill an entire unit of 28 hammerers all by their lonesome). They are also unbreakable and not unstable, so they just murder stuff without a drawback. You have access to cheap and effective chaff. You have access to the most powerful magic in the game. You have access to some of the best monsters in the game. You have access to seriously nasty chariots *as core*.

Stahp.

Captain Idaho
18-03-2015, 19:17
Um, High Elves can't destroy spells.

The bearded one
18-03-2015, 19:37
Didn't Teclis have a scroll that could destroy spells? Or is that an old edition?
High elves can destroy magic items though, but I don't think they have something more mainstream to destroy spells.


The point does stand though, dwarven magic defence is way waaaay less impressive than it used to be. If a dwarf player invests quite heavily (say.. 2 runesmiths with runes of spellbreaking, master rune of valaya), his magic defence is roughly the same as any player gets from having a lvl 4 and a lvl1 with a scrolls - the dwarf just has one more scroll.

Captain Idaho
18-03-2015, 19:43
Special characters then yes, but that's Teclis.

High Elves (and Wood Elves and Lizardmen) can destroy magic items using magic. They also have a 10pts anti dwarf magic weapon.

Montegue
18-03-2015, 20:22
Sorry, forgot that was Teclis exclusive. Which doesn't largely change my point. Yes, Dwarfs one advantage in the magic phase is a coin flip to see if they can destroy a dangerous spell. Hopefully it's not cast with IF...

Fallstorm
18-03-2015, 23:29
Juggernauts, daemon princes, chimeras, and vanguarding marauder horsemen cruise missiles are in an opponents face Turn 2!!! Even if they army is on the back line. A Deamon Prince comes over 6 dice on bubbling Choir equals a bunch dead dwarf artillery!!! A unit of 3 juggies with a darn near unkillable BSB 1+4+ with charmed shield that ignores 1st wound on a 2+. Nurgle warriors marching across and making contact by turn 4 to mop up because nothing has been shot at them due to higher priorities and you hit them on 5s!!! Yea poor chaos. Didn't even mention the Hellcannon that shoots as it moves and a cannon shot it either hits it or the crew because its not a mount! Yea it's rough being chaos... only because you have so much to choose from. It's not the army list it's the general. I play WoC, OK, Dwarves, and DE. All have their strengths, my WoC I can field so nasty that its not even fun to play. I even forgot all core chariots!!!
That list you are talking about is a basic 1.0 list and you will very rarely find competitive players fielding it anymore because it no longer works at tournaments. I don’t know what region you are in but I tell you what you show up at a GT in the NE or Mid-Atlantic with that basic net list: Slaanesh DP, Double Chimeras, all chariot Core with a few drops of warhounds and Slaanesh horsemen scattered in, and 4 juggers and see how well that list does. I tell you what you might as well put your display board for paint judging real close because the DP you will be picking up off the table almost as soon as you set him down.

Also, even if you do make it across the field with your DP (which is highly unlikely given the current meta) you better IF that cacophonic because if not a dispel scroll will take care of it and your DP is dead, that is of course assuming you get enough dice to get the 24 spell DC off in the first place, but yeah bring that list to a GT in the NE or Mid-Atlantic and see how well it does.

P.S. The Hellcannon is move or fire so it can not move and shoot

PPS: I’m sorry, but I have to say one thing that I absolutely can not stand is that whole “It is the general not the army” crap that people voice everytime some makes a complaint against an army. It is condescending and it is hyperbole. Armies have gaps. An army that has no shooting in the current meta of all fast cavalry elves and gunlines is at huge disadvantage. So, far in t he Mid-Atlantic circuit we have had 2 GTS leading to the masters Colonial Carnage in VA and Brawler Bash in Raleigh area. I have posted the final results of the armies below (Brawler first the most recent GT and Colonial Carnage last) in both of these WOC didn’t even bust the top 10. So, you are telling me this is because they all are just bad generals OR maybe perhaps the army is just lacking…..a lot, but I hear you what we need is YOU Alexander the Great to come lead us to victory with that basic DP 2 chim list that would make it past round 2 in the current meta: At any rate here are the results of the most recent GTS:

http://warscore.net/event/111/view.html


http://www.wargamersusa.com/showthread.php?tid=2816
FYI: Notice Dwarves won Colonial Carnage and I can tell it was a busted gunline army

kylek2235
18-03-2015, 23:51
And I have shown you the same results in our region, which are uncomped results. Stop pointing to comped tournaments to prove your point. It only proves that Swedish is tough on Warriors and nothing more. Many tournaments went to comping systems because of the WoC book.

I don't think anyone is cutting the Mid Atlantic short. All of the ones I've met were outstanding individuals on and off the tables.

That "busted" gunline did not take top Dwarf at the Masters though...... :shifty: As for your hatred of Dwarves..... kudos! :D Sorry Monty, you're short.

Fallstorm
18-03-2015, 23:57
And I have shown you the same results in our region, which are uncomped results. Stop pointing to comped tournaments to prove your point. It only proves that Swedish is tough on Warriors and nothing more. Many tournaments went to comping systems because of the WoC book.

I don't think anyone is cutting the Mid Atlantic short. All of the ones I've met were outstanding individuals on and off the tables.

That "busted" gunline did not take top Dwarf at the Masters though...... :shifty: As for your hatred of Dwarves..... kudos! :D Sorry Monty, you're short.
Brawler bash was for the most point uncomped and based on pure kill points. I said that before. So WOC should have excelled at this.

Fallstorm
19-03-2015, 00:00
Your argument seems to basically be: "my army has weaknesses and bad matchups, and it doesn'tdo particularly well in certain comped environments or environments with non-standard scoring, so unbound is the only solution."

Nevermind that the fast WoC list is probably on most players top 5 list of hard lists to play against.

Why do you think unbound is the solution?

If there was a real problem with WoC (there isn't, every army has weaknesses and bad matchup), surely the best solution would be to fix the problems with that army?

Unbound is a horrible system, which totally ruins the chance of a good even game for anyone who doesn't run a heavily optimized netlist. At least in the current system it is possible to run other lists and have a chance of winning, or at least getting an enjoyable game.

It is bad for casual gaming, bad for competitive gaming, and it's only really good if you have a friendly group of like-minded players who want to play unusual themed or fun lists (like representing a dark elf slaneeshi cult with a mix of dark elves and slaneeshi daemons), and for people who want to run the most optimized list they can which auto-wins against any "normal" list.

For example, I currently run a wood elf list with relatively little shooting, no shadow or high magic, and with a treeman and two large infantry blocks for a much more conventional, combat based army than most wood elf lists. It is quite a departure from the standard, withering + tons of arrows or total avoidance styles which wood elves do best. I still win with it though, even against optimized competitive lists (although some are very hard for me to beat).

If unbound comes in, the optimized lists will get stronger, and balanced, non optimized lists like mine will never be able to win.

Responding to your arguments in order:
-My argument is that all will be equal if everybody has access to the same tool and that for those who want to play fluffy list or place restrictions on what people can bring they need to get together with their TOs and as a gaming community decide that, but you should not limit everyone else’s options.
-People always seem to have a knee jerk reaction to WOC in my experience regardless of the fact that their tournament standings overall have not supported this. With the old book again WOC were not even winning Ard Boyz and making it even to the final 12 rounds, but Dwarves won an Ard Boyz West, so did Dark Elves and Skaven, the latter of which were the two top tier books back in the day. In the new book WOC was strong right after it first hit because the book changed the meta and people were not used to the fast lone model list. When the HE book was released was when things changed rapidly and since then in any competitive environment WOC slipped and continued and that netlist is one that will not win you a tournament. What I have seen personally is some of the top masters players that used to play WOC switch to armies like Dark Elves, High Elves, and Empire and abandon WOC because pound for pound the army is not that good in the current meta and has more bad match ups than other armies.
Unbound will not ruin the tournament scene. Again, TOs and the gaming community can decide what rules are in the tournament. 40k has done this same thing with many local GS having some tournaments as all open books (Escalation rules and so forth) and other tournaments with more limited choices (no D weapons, no super heavies, no unbound armies). Give people the rules option and let the community decide. If I like Cheese on my hamburger who are you to tell the restaurant not to serve cheese because you don’t like it?

Fallstorm
19-03-2015, 00:09
This is absolute madness.

The army can have incredible shooting in the form of a rare choice that costs, if you want to start at a 2+ to hit, over 200 points per model (125, 25, 70). So, for the low low price of 400+ points you can have two such nasty little monsters in your army. Great investment, but also nearly the price of a tricked out daemon prince. Super powerful, and also super vulnerable to shooting, the wide variety of flying threats, magic missiles, and enemy artillery (for example, mobile cannons). I have no sympathy for your complaints about dwarf shooting when you have an unkillable flying lord that can easily and singlehandedly wipe out an entire artillery battery.

You're right - we have very good flying chaff. It's actually the only chaff we can have that's worth a damn, and it's a bargain at 80 points. You're wrong about it marching and using artillery every turn. That's a Gyrobomber, which competes with the aforementioned Organ Guns for points, costs 125, and is thus not necessarily a good chaff investment. Gyrocopters cannot march and shoot their template, though they can drop a single bomb once a game. The Copters are amazing. You're right. We have one amazing model.

Your claims about the magic phase are completely pants, however. Dwarfs cannot shut down the magic phase unless you roll very poorly for Winds. Yes, we *can* destroy a spell (we're not the only ones. High elves have something that can do that, as well). We channel dispel dice now, which means we have little or no bonus dice to work with. Anyone who knows what they are doing during a magic phase will get 1-2 spells off against dwarfs every turn, assuming decent rolls.

Now on to your final claim. Which is, altogether, ridiculous on it's face. Dwarfs do have easy access to stubborn. However, there's not a single dwarf model in the game that's got the ability to outfight a chaos warrior pound for pound. We get a 5+ parry on turn 1, unless you're talking about ironbreakers. You, however, have access to marks, 2 attacks per model on your core, a base save that's as good as the strongest armor built by any race (gromril) on every Warrior of Chaos, init 5, s4 base on Warriors, t4 base, and access to amazing weapon options that turn your bog standard Warrior of Chaos into a meat grinder. Halbred + Mark of Nurgle means only a Dwarf Lord or Thane can hit your guys on a 4, and everyone else needs a 5 or better to hit. You're hitting first at S5 with 2 attacks per model, WS5, and whatever benefit you might get from your magical standard.


Your Lore of Slannesh can autowin games. Your Daemon Princes can single handedly destroy entire units of my infantry (yes, even Hammerers. I've now had a single Nurgle Prince kill an entire unit of 28 hammerers all by their lonesome). They are also unbreakable and not unstable, so they just murder stuff without a drawback. You have access to cheap and effective chaff. You have access to the most powerful magic in the game. You have access to some of the best monsters in the game. You have access to seriously nasty chariots *as core*.

Stahp.


Highs (or any elves) for that matter can’t shut down the magic phase. Teclis has some trick but it is rarely used as HE spend point in other areas and in some tournaments named characters are banned. I Lizardmen do you the cube of darkness, but that does not eat a spell. Also, dwarves can take more than one spell eater also. The cube of darkness is a solo item usable once.
Yes, we do get more attacks than you, but if you have hammered us down with artillery as we march across the field, you have more troops than us, and you are stubborn with a higher leadership how well do you think that fight is going to go? Not to mention your dwarf lords are none too shabby in combat. With your high strength and multiwound weapon you could kill a daemon prince, but then again most people aren’t fielding DP anymore because of dwarves and The Empire.

kylek2235
19-03-2015, 00:18
Brawler bash was for the most point uncomped and based on pure kill points. I said that before. So WOC should have excelled at this.

I still can't take a tournament where losing half your games can still net you the overall victory as evidence of army book strength. Its not traditional Warhammer and traditional warhammer is the basis for comparison here. I admit, I expected a better showing for the Legions of Chaos (since WoC was eaten by that list), but for whatever reason it didn't happen. Brawlers might be the closest thing to an Unbound tournament in the US, so that's a huge different. Lord Inquisitor would have a better insight on that one than me.

Not saying that you can't prove your argument, just saying you'll have to look outside of your region.

Fallstorm
19-03-2015, 00:32
I still can't take a tournament where losing half your games can still net you the overall victory as evidence of army book strength. Its not traditional Warhammer and traditional warhammer is the basis for comparison here. I admit, I expected a better showing for the Legions of Chaos (since WoC was eaten by that list), but for whatever reason it didn't happen. Brawlers might be the closest thing to an Unbound tournament in the US, so that's a huge different. Lord Inquisitor would have a better insight on that one than me.

Not saying that you can't prove your argument, just saying you'll have to look outside of your region.
I have gone outside the region The U.S. Masters is national. As, far as the reason Chaos Legions did not do so well I think it is due to the current meta. Most Legions list seem to use WOC as the basis and then supplement that list with Daemonic allies in the form of Skull Cannons of Khorne (so that we can face Steam tanks and shoot at dwarves just like every other army out there) and pink horror drops with maybe a greater Daemon like a Bloodthirster thrown in. Well, this tournament had a total of 7 Dwarf armies playing and I think close to seven if not more Empire armies playing. A lot of those Empire armies use Light Councils which just rapes Daemons and then the gunlines just shoot them down (What’s the magic number? 10” from the back! Yah! Great Skill there huh?). Not to mention all the Elven Legions and High Elves with Banner of the World Dragon running around. So, yeah Legions was hit hard, unlike Undead Legions and Elven Legions but Chaos is sooo “broken” Ha!
At any rate, I pray for unbound so the gaps can be filled.

kylek2235
19-03-2015, 00:47
I have gone outside the region The U.S. Masters is national. As, far as the reason Chaos Legions did not do so well I think it is due to the current meta. Most Legions list seem to use WOC as the basis and then supplement that list with Daemonic allies in the form of Skull Cannons of Khorne (so that we can face Steam tanks and shoot at dwarves just like every other army out there) and pink horror drops with maybe a greater Daemon like a Bloodthirster thrown in. Well, this tournament had a total of 7 Dwarf armies playing and I think close to seven if not more Empire armies playing. A lot of those Empire armies use Light Councils which just rapes Daemons and then the gunlines just shoot them down (What’s the magic number? 10” from the back! Yah! Great Skill there huh?). Not to mention all the Elven Legions and High Elves with Banner of the World Dragon running around. So, yeah Legions was hit hard, unlike Undead Legions and Elven Legions but Chaos is sooo “broken” Ha!
At any rate, I pray for unbound so the gaps can be filled.

Lol, you're still not getting that Swedish comp thing again: it proves only that Swedish comp hits the WoC hard. I do know a thing or two about that tournament though and Stephen Firth finished 10th in Battle points with his WoC there, 3 spots higher than the nearest non gunline Dwarf.

So far I have 3 tournies fitting an uncomped normal scoring system to your 0. ;)

Fallstorm
19-03-2015, 01:12
Lol, you're still not getting that Swedish comp thing again: it proves only that Swedish comp hits the WoC hard. I do know a thing or two about that tournament though and Stephen Firth finished 10th in Battle points with his WoC there, 3 spots higher than the nearest non gunline Dwarf.

So far I have 3 tournies fitting an uncomped normal scoring system to your 0. ;)
I get the whole Swedish comp thing. You asked why Legions of Chaos didn’t do well at Brawler Bash and I provided the answer. Also, WOC (Or Chaos Legions) for that matter didn’t have a good showing at Brawler Bash which is not Swedish Comp so even if I accept what you are saying by my counts th
at is 1 correct?
Also, your post don’t really tell me much. For example, yes a WOC player did make the top 10 in the masters but on this thread about the Masters:


http://www.wargamersusa.com/showthread.php?tid=2896

(http://www.wargamersusa.com/showthread.php?tid=2896)

in post #8 it breaks down how the armies ranked in the system overall. WOC is solidly mid-tier slightly above O&G and a few others (Unbound will fix those armies too. Like Lizardmen who are in a bad spot right now)

Also, the WOC player who placed top 10 did not face a dwarven gunline because on the # 1st post of this document there is a google doc that gives the round by round pairings and the results. Round 1 he faced ogre kingdoms, round 2 wood elves, round 3 dark elves, round 4 Chaos Dwarves (a non gunline build for the most part), Round 5 Wood elves again, and round 6 Orcs & Goblins. The Woc did not even face a single Dwarf gunline. I bet some of those WOC players who placed lower finally did. So, the story is very different when we look at the whole picture yes?

Yes, I do think Dwarven gunlines overall did bad at the masters because just like Empire steamtanks every other army has the tools to deal with them which is exactly the point I have been making. Notice how I am the one going to threads presenting numerical findings and facts. You can believe what you want. The gunline is out of control and WOC can no longer be a viable army given the artillery power Empire (which is a popular army and which again the WOC player who placed well avoided at the master's) and dwarves. Marching/flying across the field and getting shot at is no longer going to cut it. Unbound/allies is the best solution. ;)

CariadocThorne
19-03-2015, 08:55
Unbound will not ruin the tournament scene. Again, TOs and the gaming community can decide what rules are in the tournament. 40k has done this same thing with many local GS having some tournaments as all open books (Escalation rules and so forth) and other tournaments with more limited choices (no D weapons, no super heavies, no unbound armies). Give people the rules option and let the community decide. If I like Cheese on my hamburger who are you to tell the restaurant not to serve cheese because you don’t like it?

I'm not ignoring the rest of your argument, but I want to focus on this for the moment.

You've kind of hinted at part of the problem here. Many tournaments will rule out unbound, as they did in 40k (at least to start with, nit sure if that's still the case), and close knit groups can make a choice for themselves based on the wishes of their members. Fine so far, although if tournaments decide not to use unbound, it doesn't fix any of the problems you're having.

The problem is the vast numbers of players who play most of their games in a casual pickup game environment. They get screwed. Just like in 40k where you can now turn up at your local open gaming night and find yourself facing a Titan and his knight buddies, or something equally absurd.

It doesn't make things more balanced, except for people willing and able to cherry-pick the best from each army into a WAAC obscenity.

It's not about saying "you can't have cheese on your burger", it's about saying "you can't force your cheese on everyone else because the rulebook now makes it legit".

If unbound was the solution to balance in warhammer, tournaments would have tried it by now in place of comp. They haven't because it's not the solution. Armies are supposed to have weaknesses, every army has them.

Yes, some armies have more significant weaknesses than others, but no one ever said the game was perfectly balanced. Unbound won't fix the balance between armies, it'll bypass it.

Wouldn't fixing the balance between armies with new, more balanced army books be better?

It sounds very much like you won't be satisfied until your army has no weaknesses. You are already one of the strongest armies in both the combat and magic phases, and very well off in the movement phase too. Even your shooting phase, while not particularly strong, isn't really that bad, considering how hard it is to shut down.

The bearded one
19-03-2015, 09:33
I have literally never seen anyone use unbound in my local pick-up game scenes, where I play most of my games.

I mean I guess you could, but don't expect people to want to play against you anymore.

Wesser
19-03-2015, 10:18
No Unbound please

I guess it's balanced if everyone is free pull all the same OP crap, but it is impossible to put limitations that will make games more than just listbuilding.


Oh, and WoC seems OP to me. Last competitive tournament I was in: 20 players - 1 VC (me) - 1 High Elf - 2 Skaven - Rest WoC. Opinions may vary across metas and various comps, but WoC just have some really goofy crap going on....

Spiney Norman
19-03-2015, 11:52
I have literally never seen anyone use unbound in my local pick-up game scenes, where I play most of my games.

I mean I guess you could, but don't expect people to want to play against you anymore.

It happens a lot on 40k because people just assume it's ok because it's in the rule book, as far as fantasy goes most players still feel compelled to ask permission to use rules from the end times books because they are not "standard warhammer" in the way that unbound is "standard 40k", although players who keep up with the FAQs have been building to 50% lords/heroes as standard, one O&G player has even started using the lore of undeath in standard play, though that has t caused too many waves.

Interestingly the rules pack for 40k throne of skulls this year does allow unbound armies, that's going to be such a fun event...

I confess to a certain degree of trepidation about what they will do with 9th edition, but I assume it will keep the same trademark wonky rules and spammable power units that has marked GW's games throughout their history.

Fallstorm
19-03-2015, 12:21
I'm not ignoring the rest of your argument, but I want to focus on this for the moment.

You've kind of hinted at part of the problem here. Many tournaments will rule out unbound, as they did in 40k (at least to start with, nit sure if that's still the case), and close knit groups can make a choice for themselves based on the wishes of their members. Fine so far, although if tournaments decide not to use unbound, it doesn't fix any of the problems you're having.

The problem is the vast numbers of players who play most of their games in a casual pickup game environment. They get screwed. Just like in 40k where you can now turn up at your local open gaming night and find yourself facing a Titan and his knight buddies, or something equally absurd.

It doesn't make things more balanced, except for people willing and able to cherry-pick the best from each army into a WAAC obscenity.

It's not about saying "you can't have cheese on your burger", it's about saying "you can't force your cheese on everyone else because the rulebook now makes it legit".

If unbound was the solution to balance in warhammer, tournaments would have tried it by now in place of comp. They haven't because it's not the solution. Armies are supposed to have weaknesses, every army has them.

Yes, some armies have more significant weaknesses than others, but no one ever said the game was perfectly balanced. Unbound won't fix the balance between armies, it'll bypass it.

Wouldn't fixing the balance between armies with new, more balanced army books be better?

It sounds very much like you won't be satisfied until your army has no weaknesses. You are already one of the strongest armies in both the combat and magic phases, and very well off in the movement phase too. Even your shooting phase, while not particularly strong, isn't really that bad, considering how hard it is to shut down.I don’t see a tournaments and local gaming communities which rules to use and not use as a problem. Yes, there will be some tournaments that will not allow unbound or allied armies. If that is the case I will probably choose not to play in those tournaments, as again I don’t like R/P/S match ups and WOC going up against a gunline is pretty much a R/P/S match that is lopsided and not fun. The same with Daemons going up against Banner of the World Dragon, which every HE army seems to use.

Again, if you want to play casually amongst your friends I think communication is the key here. I know we are all nerds but sometimes you can actually talk to people and interact to get what you want beforehand. My local gamestore has a message board where I can post when I am looking for games. I could also post what limits I want within my games. Likewise, my friends aren’t just gaming friends we hang out and talk to each other via text and phones to. We can arrange what games we play.

Yes, you are telling me I can’t have cheese on my hamburger. In fact, you are telling the restaurant not to even put cheese on the menu.

WHFB have not allied unbound because there is no unbound in fantasy. 40k doesn’t have the equivalent of a Swedish comp or ETC to regulate it. I think the reason is because they can have allies. That is what people don’t understand. Yes, some 40k tournaments will not allow unbound BUT anyone can still follow the battle-forged rules (the standard system where you have to have primary detachment, one HQ etc) and still ally with any army. So, Chaos Space Marines for example can ally with Imperial Knights. If 9th edition fantasy works this way that will be fine. Perhaps I can’t unbound an army during a tournament, but if I want to have Warriors as my primary force and Empire as my secondary force with Stanks, and volley guns, inner circle knights, and maybe a hurricanum that works for me.
Yes, armies do have strengths and weaknesses but right now some armies weaknesses are more glaring than other and glaring to the point they need fixing. From a WOC perspective with heavy firepower artillery (organs withs -3 armor saves), bolt throwers that cut through armor, and mobile monsters that you really need cannons to deal with (Terrorgheist. The VC scream list is a hard counter to warriors if the screams didn’t work in combat it would be so bad. With cannons like the Daemons flaming cannon or empire cannons or dwarf cannons this match up is a breeze), being a purely close combat army is not really viable any longer. Essentially allies and unbound will allow EVERy army to compete in a phase of the game. Dwarves could arguably to slaan wizards for example. Woc are strong in combat, In magic we don’t have ways to reliable get extra dice like Empire, Lizardmen, Skaven warpstone, O&G mushrooms, Dark elves, and even tomb kings. Like I said, when you bring WOC to the table just know you will probably be out-numbered, out-gunned, and out-sorcelled. With allies we can all be even but different and unique

Fallstorm
19-03-2015, 12:25
I have literally never seen anyone use unbound in my local pick-up game scenes, where I play most of my games.

I mean I guess you could, but don't expect people to want to play against you anymore.

This sounds to me like a perfect example of local gaming groups deciding what does and does not work for them, despite the rules being present for those who want to go that way being available. Imagine that.

Fallstorm
19-03-2015, 12:34
No Unbound please

I guess it's balanced if everyone is free pull all the same OP crap, but it is impossible to put limitations that will make games more than just listbuilding.


Oh, and WoC seems OP to me. Last competitive tournament I was in: 20 players - 1 VC (me) - 1 High Elf - 2 Skaven - Rest WoC. Opinions may vary across metas and various comps, but WoC just have some really goofy crap going on....
Exactly, if everyone is free to have access to everything then everyone is de facto equal. Warhammer is already a game that has a lot netlisting going on so that argument is not valid. In fact, once you open up every book it becomes harder to netbuild because you would have to be an expert and see the hidden gems in every book to be uber. So, I think you would see more unusual and surprise instead of normal list this way.

Also, again people seem to have that knee-jark “Chaos!!! Wah! They are uber!” reaction but the tournament results that I gone over in post 115 and 123 and provided links (one of which includes a Google spreadsheet), plus history at uncomped tournaments (like the Ard Boyz) seems to suggest this feeling is not now nor has ever been warranted.
1 VC, 1 HE, and 2 Skaven. Where the hell are you playing? Yes, in that environment the WOC 1.0 nnetlist nurgle DP, 2 Chims, and Crushers would work. The only threat to it is the VC if build right and the HE, any where else like in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic where armies like Elves of all sorts, Dwarves, The Empire, and Vampire Counts are popular if you bring that list bring an ambulance because the Daemon prince will be DOA. Then you would be left with a lot foot troops. Skaven Dreaded 13th and tarpits will handle those.

Also, just for the record I have communicated my concerns on how WOC are comped to the Swedish committee several times. A gentleman on the committee named Erik Aronson has responded to me. In one response he stated that WOC is one that the committee does struggle to comp appropriately because I guess most armies have a general bandwidth on how well they perform at tournaments. WOC, on the otherhand he stated tended to be varied in results. He stated this creates a challenge to gauge their strength, but suggest that the army may be more susceptible to getting the correct match ups to winning than other armies.
No armies should have that kind of a dependence on the right match up to win. The only other army that has this is Daemons where if they face BOTWD or Light Councils (which Empire, a popular army, frequently runs) it is almost an auto lose.

HelloKitty
19-03-2015, 13:23
I think to date there are two instances where I have heard of people using unbound. Spiney Norman's area, and now Throne of Skulls.

sixfthoneybadger
19-03-2015, 13:35
I can't believe we have derailed so bad because someone thinks WoC is comp'd to hard or can't be competitive in tournaments.

I love my WoC army. They have a little of everything. As I became a better player I looked for harder armies to play. My WoC were so OVERpowered that I could make tactical blunders and still win through it. To be a better player I had to take armies that were tough to play.

Since 8th army books have been coming out they have been better balanced. I think many WoC players got so used to rolling people up that when the books got balanced their tactics didn't adapt and improve. It's not the book it's the player. Try playing different armies. To know your enemy is to know how to beat him. Play better.

forseer of fates
19-03-2015, 13:38
An army of stormfiends with gatling guns, unbound fun for the whole family.

Montegue
19-03-2015, 13:38
Highs (or any elves) for that matter can’t shut down the magic phase. Teclis has some trick but it is rarely used as HE spend point in other areas and in some tournaments named characters are banned. I Lizardmen do you the cube of darkness, but that does not eat a spell. Also, dwarves can take more than one spell eater also. The cube of darkness is a solo item usable once.
Yes, we do get more attacks than you, but if you have hammered us down with artillery as we march across the field, you have more troops than us, and you are stubborn with a higher leadership how well do you think that fight is going to go? Not to mention your dwarf lords are none too shabby in combat. With your high strength and multiwound weapon you could kill a daemon prince, but then again most people aren’t fielding DP anymore because of dwarves and The Empire.

All of our spell breaking runes (single or double) are single use items. Furthermore, I have to pay 60 for each runesmith, then 45 for the first eater, and 50 for the second (rule of pride). So, for 200+ points (assuming no other upgrades at all) I get 2 dispells and by rights should kill a spell. The heroes do provide Armor Piercing and MR1, so that's a decent buy, but you're painting dwarf anti magic as if it was as strong as it was in the last book, and that's patently false.

We might have more troops than you. Our artillery is super vulnerable not only to your magic phase, but also to your horde of available flying/mounted heroes that can all destroy all of our artillery themselves. Our lords will never see combat against your Daemon Prince because he flies and picks his fight.

Warriors of Chaos do struggle against strong shooting, but that's the only thing they struggle against. Every time I try out a Warriors army for a lark, it's like playing on autopilot. Push forward, arrange charges, win. Besides, Warriors have access to Hellcannons, and can shoot pretty damn well themselves (S5 and an panic at -1).

Our Leadership won't matter when you Aquiessence us. We might have a handful more troops than you (longbeards with shields are still 13ppm), but you also have a magic phase and a hell cannon to hurt *our* models, and when we do fight you we're at a -1 to hit, you're killing a scad of dwarfs before we ever swing, and you still have a 4+ or 3+ save and potentially a parry or a ward save to boot.

Complaining that Warriors are underpowered is silly. They're easily one of the strongest armies in the game. I think only dark elves exceed them.

Cutter
19-03-2015, 13:54
I would be surprised if there isn't the genesis of some kind of pre-painted option at GW within the next few years too.

Kill it with fire.

Cutter
19-03-2015, 13:55
Personally, I think they need to have pre-painted figures, but just for the starter box. Or include paints, glue, etc. with it.

It worked out so well for Rackham.

Wesser
19-03-2015, 14:17
Exactly, if everyone is free to have access to everything then everyone is de facto equal. Warhammer is already a game that has a lot netlisting going on so that argument is not valid. In fact, once you open up every book it becomes harder to netbuild because you would have to be an expert and see the hidden gems in every book to be uber. So, I think you would see more unusual and surprise instead of normal list this way.


I'm gonna refrain from continuing the WoC thing, but lemme just say that it wasn't too fun being a VC player who refrains from Blender Lords, competitive tourneys or no :)

But in the quote above.... you are so wrong it's off the chart.

40k is 75% listbuilding, but in WFB it's only very specific lists such WE avoidance where you can have matchups that somebody is almost guaranteed to lose.

There are good and bad matchups, but a unit such as the good old Elven Spearmen is in with a fighting chance against most things. And if they get a bad matchup you've got magic, flank/rear charges etc. you can use to offset any disadvantage.


With Unbound...Most likely most games will paper/scissor affairs, where it's blindingly obvious who's going to win. If I take my VC army and specifically tailor it to beat WoC.. or heck tailor to beat a specific WoC list... well I may have a list vs. list advantage, but I can never build a list in a way that will even remotely guarantee victory. You can virtually never have games so unbalanced that it ain't worth playing out.

With Unbound this is not only possible. It is the likeliest scenario

Spiney Norman
19-03-2015, 14:34
In fairness I think unbound as a concept works infinitely better in wfb than it does in 40k, at least in wfb every unit in the game, at least in theory, has the capability to damage every other unit in the game, the vehicle rules make unbound 40k thoroughly unpleasant to play against because you can easily discover that you turn up to a game, find your opponent has only brought vehicles and thus made every weapon/unit of strength 4 or less completely unable to damage his forces.

That's not to say I like it, some of us strongly identify with the factions we play and the idea of playing in a multi-army soup where only the most broken units survive is not appealing.

Wesser
19-03-2015, 14:50
In fairness I think unbound as a concept works infinitely better in wfb than it does in 40k, at least in wfb every unit in the game, at least in theory, has the capability to damage every other unit in the game, the vehicle rules make unbound 40k thoroughly unpleasant to play against because you can easily discover that you turn up to a game, find your opponent has only brought vehicles and thus made every weapon/unit of strength 4 or less completely unable to damage his forces.

That's not to say I like it, some of us strongly identify with the factions we play and the idea of playing in a multi-army soup where only the most broken units survive is not appealing.

Well we're just talking balance atm. since it appears those factions we love and identify with is going into said multi-army soup anyway.

Won't stop me from trying to protect the game I love though. I'm not greatest player or painter and indeed use alternatives models or conversion due to cheapness or transportability(dumm Mortis Engine concept) and as such have little to be high-and-mighty above.

But someone turns p with say and army of a little bit elves, skaven and chaos mixed in then I'm gonna tell the guy that his army sucks. I'm super-lenient to most other things (happily played against a salt-shaker proxying for a Dark Eldar Ravager), as long as I can still feel I'm fighting Chaos, Empire or some other faction I can quantify, define and characterize

Spiney Norman
19-03-2015, 15:43
Incidentally I've just been reading through the Warhammer throne of skulls rule pack for this year and... it has all the additional end times rules in play, I'm seriously thinking about turning up with Malekith, Nagash and a pair of steam tanks and calling it an army...

Snake1311
19-03-2015, 16:01
Its a shame the USA community doesn't have a centralised ranking system, and their regional ones would probably not have enough data to really be drawing conclusions.

Here in the UK we have a central rankings system, which puts WoC in the top tier (5th at the moment), which probably won't really come as a surprise to anyone looking at it.

In the interest of providing links, :http://www.rankings.baddice.co.uk/army_list/region=3&game=1

Timathius
19-03-2015, 16:14
I have gone outside the region The U.S. Masters is national. As, far as the reason Chaos Legions did not do so well I think it is due to the current meta. Most Legions list seem to use WOC as the basis and then supplement that list with Daemonic allies in the form of Skull Cannons of Khorne (so that we can face Steam tanks and shoot at dwarves just like every other army out there) and pink horror drops with maybe a greater Daemon like a Bloodthirster thrown in. Well, this tournament had a total of 7 Dwarf armies playing and I think close to seven if not more Empire armies playing. A lot of those Empire armies use Light Councils which just rapes Daemons and then the gunlines just shoot them down (What’s the magic number? 10” from the back! Yah! Great Skill there huh?). Not to mention all the Elven Legions and High Elves with Banner of the World Dragon running around. So, yeah Legions was hit hard, unlike Undead Legions and Elven Legions but Chaos is sooo “broken” Ha!
At any rate, I pray for unbound so the gaps can be filled.

Just to set the record straight (brawlers) we dwarfs only had two players near the top (me and Phil), and I do 6 inches from the front thank you very much :D. How much skill does putting a bsb on a disk with re-rolling ward saves, or nurgle daemon princes, or grabbing as many dice as you can and saying the words "purple sun" take exactly ? Every army has good and bad units. Yes, there are some imbalances. But for the most part I love where the meta is at, everyone has a shot.

I am pumped if these rumors are true however. I would love to make a skirmish army of Brets or empire, keep my dwarfs and vamps for comp play, and go ape wild with undead legions for fun 5k-10k games unbound with tons of beer and a whole day of hilarity.

sixfthoneybadger
19-03-2015, 17:43
Unbound? So I could do all giants. Which army would that be then??? New faction. The Giant faction!!! :)

Zaonite
19-03-2015, 18:46
Unbound? So I could do all giants. Which army would that be then??? New faction. The Giant faction!!! :)

Rumour confirmed! Fantasy is getting it's own faction of Giants! :p

I am looking forward to a new edition of Fantasy. Skirmish.... eeh... would be good to get people into the game. Sitting on the fence for that one.

CariadocThorne
19-03-2015, 21:45
Skirmish would be great....... So long as it is alongside the battle game not instead.

I love the idea of building a warband in the skirmish game and then using it as the core of your army in the battle game too.

Stegadeth
19-03-2015, 22:01
I can't believe we have derailed so bad because someone thinks WoC is comp'd to hard or can't be competitive in tournaments.

I love my WoC army. They have a little of everything. As I became a better player I looked for harder armies to play. My WoC were so OVERpowered that I could make tactical blunders and still win through it. To be a better player I had to take armies that were tough to play.

Since 8th army books have been coming out they have been better balanced. I think many WoC players got so used to rolling people up that when the books got balanced their tactics didn't adapt and improve. It's not the book it's the player. Try playing different armies. To know your enemy is to know how to beat him. Play better.

I'm glad a WoC player came in and said this first. I was going to suggest something similar, as WoC was the most common opponent for me and my Lizardmen Army simply because my friend Brian loved playing Warriors and was available to game just about anytime I wanted to. I could win, but I had to build very specifically for WoC. An all-comers, all around style list just would not beat them. Brian had many armies, and when I wanted a real challenge, I'd tell him to bring whatever. When he wanted to test out his tournament lists, he'd let me know exactly what he was bringing so I could build for it. We had a lot of fun, but WoC are extremely uh... forgiving. Brian could make mistakes and poor choices and win with ease some times. I had to hope he had a stupid dragon or blew himself up in turn 1.

JackStreicher
19-03-2015, 22:04
Oh my god, my heroes will die, my units will die... I will die. This is all pointless, isn't it?
You don't get the point.
They are not just dead, the whole world is gone. There's less fun in making up stories for mystic places and all since they'll perish anyway.
I like the future to be what it is: a mystery it takes the sense and magic to know what will happen.

Fallstorm
19-03-2015, 23:36
I can't believe we have derailed so bad because someone thinks WoC is comp'd to hard or can't be competitive in tournaments.

I love my WoC army. They have a little of everything. As I became a better player I looked for harder armies to play. My WoC were so OVERpowered that I could make tactical blunders and still win through it. To be a better player I had to take armies that were tough to play.

Since 8th army books have been coming out they have been better balanced. I think many WoC players got so used to rolling people up that when the books got balanced their tactics didn't adapt and improve. It's not the book it's the player. Try playing different armies. To know your enemy is to know how to beat him. Play better.
First, the thread is about 9th edition. Talking about the state of armies is a part of any edition change. I used WOC to illustrate how I think that allies and unbound rules which hopefully will be a part of 9th edition will better balance the game and I used WOC as a point of reference, but I did state several times that allies would balance ALL armies. Nothing has been derailed you are not putting disassociated facts together. Can we not use examples to illustrate why we think unbound is good? I used WOC because that is what I know, but I do play other armies too FYI and I have to say WOC I find to be more of a challenge than the other armies I play. Ogre Kingdoms to me are much easier to play than WOC, and the same for Daemons.

Secondly, WOC were not rolling people left and right. This result was not supported in the old book via Ard Boyz tournament results and again with the new book tournament results says otherwise. Maybe you play against bad opponents, but I have produced results that showed WOC have not just rolled people. All you have done is say “They’re overpowered.” The only time WOC ever rolled people is when the book first came out and people needed to adapt to the new playstyle.

“You needed” more challenging armies to try out so you took Ogre Kingdoms? My God that is like being a swordsmen and saying I want a weapon that gives my opponents more of a chance so I starting using a submachine gun versus my sword. Ogre Kingdoms are one of the strongest armies in the game. Great movement (M6 on models and lone model chaff like Sabre tusk to hold up units), Great magic-relatively low cost spells that give nice buffs, great shooting: Move and shoot cannons and leadbelchers that pump out a bunch of high strength shots, and they are brutal in close combat. Yeah, you picked a real hard one there my friend.

I have already disproven the WOC rolling people left and right, but if you want to live in a bubble world despite facts be my guess. I will agree that the 8th edition books are more balanced than previous editions. That still does not make the game balanced or make the game not need improvements. I feel that Unbound rules and allies rules are the improvement the game needs not just for WOC but for the game as a whole.

Fallstorm
19-03-2015, 23:39
I'm glad a WoC player came in and said this first. I was going to suggest something similar, as WoC was the most common opponent for me and my Lizardmen Army simply because my friend Brian loved playing Warriors and was available to game just about anytime I wanted to. I could win, but I had to build very specifically for WoC. An all-comers, all around style list just would not beat them. Brian had many armies, and when I wanted a real challenge, I'd tell him to bring whatever. When he wanted to test out his tournament lists, he'd let me know exactly what he was bringing so I could build for it. We had a lot of fun, but WoC are extremely uh... forgiving. Brian could make mistakes and poor choices and win with ease some times. I had to hope he had a stupid dragon or blew himself up in turn 1.

As I stated to sixtofhoneybadger and now I am stating to you, believe what you will be U.S. Master results do not support your claims at all of WOC being overpowered and the results are there for people to see vs. your anectodal evidence about how WOC crushed you left and right.
I can’t believe you found WOC hard to face especially with Lizards before they got their new book. The new Lizardmen book is a mess (hard to believe the same person who wrote Skaven and Ogres: Jeremy Vetok wrote the new book and Lizards are so depowered vs. the powerhouse rules he gave to Ogres but on this I will digress). WOC are not forgiving. You are outnumbered, outgunned, and out magiced. Yes, the play style of WOC is straight forward but tactically they are not easy to play, even on the GW website under the armies section it talks about despite their power stats you have to be a savvy general to win with them. Why? Because they don’t have the resources other armies have. Like I said any other army that faces gunlines and steamtansk just thinks hey I got cannons and bolt throwers or tons of cheap chaff to deal with these (I have seen a squig screw over a stank and it was funny as heck to see). Where as WOC just had to deal with. Perfect example, when I use my friends Daemons gunlines are not a problem. It goes like this.



Round 1 take cover with units especially lone models like greater daemon general. And use artillery like skullcannons to shoot at dwarven artillery making organ guns a priority. Also round 1 target them with magic in the phase to try and put wounds on artillery and soften them up

Round 2: Move in with ambushers…fleshhounds should move into whatever warmachines haven’t been destroyed and are the biggest threat. Yes, the dwarf will target the hounds on their turn but will probably not destroy all them, and 1 hound is more than enough to destroy a warmachine crew especially with +1 str on the charge.

Round 3: Have hound charge warmachines. And start moving combat units up. From there it is my game. It is so easy it isn’t even funny. WOC. You fly/march across the field and hope you make it. Often times you want because your chimeras will get shot down, or they shoot the DP and the L5 Chems Panic. Yeah it is bad.


With Ogres. I am coming with 3 sizable blocks of ogres. Yes, they will kill a few ogres (usually the target ironblaster) but I am coming across the field with multiwound models M6 and when I get there they are done. So, please don’t tell me how easy WOC is compared to other armies, and again while I don’t play them dwarves are not hard to play: Castle and shoot so get real.
To keep it on point for sixtofhoney. Again, unbound will fix t he weakness in all armies. It is just hard to argue against that. If everyone has access to everything all is equal and that is just deductive reasoning folks.

Fallstorm
19-03-2015, 23:50
I'm gonna refrain from continuing the WoC thing, but lemme just say that it wasn't too fun being a VC player who refrains from Blender Lords, competitive tourneys or no :)

But in the quote above.... you are so wrong it's off the chart.

40k is 75% listbuilding, but in WFB it's only very specific lists such WE avoidance where you can have matchups that somebody is almost guaranteed to lose.

There are good and bad matchups, but a unit such as the good old Elven Spearmen is in with a fighting chance against most things. And if they get a bad matchup you've got magic, flank/rear charges etc. you can use to offset any disadvantage.


With Unbound...Most likely most games will paper/scissor affairs, where it's blindingly obvious who's going to win. If I take my VC army and specifically tailor it to beat WoC.. or heck tailor to beat a specific WoC list... well I may have a list vs. list advantage, but I can never build a list in a way that will even remotely guarantee victory. You can virtually never have games so unbalanced that it ain't worth playing out.

With Unbound this is not only possible. It is the likeliest scenario
I think if 9th edition gives the option for unbound and allies you will not see this. Most people only know really their army. Every book has some obvious choices, and most books have some hidden (underused gems). I think list building will be more difficult under this system, because a list builder will have to work at it more.

Also, from a new player perspective I think unbound works better. Because you might have someone who has random models and not an army and he can go play a game with those models. If the group decides not to use unbound but just use Allies like some 40k tournaments do because besides unbound allies are the base rules, it will be more fun because then armies can shore up their weaknesses
If a gaming community thinks unbound and allies is too upsetting they can elect not to use them. People said, unbound and allied rules would destroy 40k but it has not. What happened was that the 40k community regulated itself with some tournaments open to unbound and some tournaments saying no, some tournaments using escalation and some tournaments saying no.
Essentially, what I get from 9th edition and the “bubble concept” and how you can play skirmish, pre-end times, End Times, or Post-Apocalypse is that GW is saying to the community “Look. Here is a game and a set of rules with various options but it is your game.” Get it. OUR game. WE-the various communities-can elect what rules to use and/or ignore but at least let it be an OPTION.

Fallstorm
19-03-2015, 23:56
Kill it with fire.

I would love pre-painted minis. To me I am a gamist not a hobbyist and assembling and painting miniatures I don't find that fun. This is not to say I think all miniatures should be that way but I do think it GW would make more money if they did give people the option to buy this way, especially younger people.



I think this would be an especially good option for the figures in the starter box/skirmish game, and I do feel GW does need to do a skirmish game as a lower point of entry and that the models in teh skirmish can be figures to add to an existing army or build up a new army. As I stated in previous posts my concerns about a GW skirmish game are though that 1) the factions given in the starter game need to be equally balanced against each other (the Island of Blood set is not), and 2) every phase that would be present in a standard game should be present in the skirmish game. Kill Team for 40k is okay except there is no psychic phase. If a phase exists in the standard game it should be present in the skirmish rules too.

Fallstorm
20-03-2015, 00:10
All of our spell breaking runes (single or double) are single use items. Furthermore, I have to pay 60 for each runesmith, then 45 for the first eater, and 50 for the second (rule of pride). So, for 200+ points (assuming no other upgrades at all) I get 2 dispells and by rights should kill a spell. The heroes do provide Armor Piercing and MR1, so that's a decent buy, but you're painting dwarf anti magic as if it was as strong as it was in the last book, and that's patently false.

We might have more troops than you. Our artillery is super vulnerable not only to your magic phase, but also to your horde of available flying/mounted heroes that can all destroy all of our artillery themselves. Our lords will never see combat against your Daemon Prince because he flies and picks his fight.

Warriors of Chaos do struggle against strong shooting, but that's the only thing they struggle against. Every time I try out a Warriors army for a lark, it's like playing on autopilot. Push forward, arrange charges, win. Besides, Warriors have access to Hellcannons, and can shoot pretty damn well themselves (S5 and an panic at -1).

Our Leadership won't matter when you Aquiessence us. We might have a handful more troops than you (longbeards with shields are still 13ppm), but you also have a magic phase and a hell cannon to hurt *our* models, and when we do fight you we're at a -1 to hit, you're killing a scad of dwarfs before we ever swing, and you still have a 4+ or 3+ save and potentially a parry or a ward save to boot.

Complaining that Warriors are underpowered is silly. They're easily one of the strongest armies in the game. I think only dark elves exceed them.

First, your artillery is not vulnerable. Yes, like most warmachines if we make it to them they can die but you have so much of it and it is accurate, and you have chaff and redirectors like gyrocopters that making it to you should be a problem, and you should be position your stubborn combat blocks so that when we get close you can charge us or counter charge when we charge in.
Secondly, we don’t have a horde of flying/mounted monsters. Also, if you are getting beat that bad then you either have poor luck with dice, but your cannons are accurate as hell just like the organ gun so I don’t see that or you have poor target selection.

Here’s the thing about the WOC take out the chimeras. The DP is NOT the hammer of the army it is the chimeras. They put on the hurt the DP just has the ability to potentially hold up blocks. IF you take out the chimeras the DP will get to you and he will win combat but you will be stubborn on LD 9-10 so his butt will just sit in combat all do OR your kited out lord might kill him. The only advantage of taking the DP out fast is usually a wOC general will screen the DP with the chimeras, meaning they are close together so if you take out a DP the chimeras will panic most likely.
Third, acquiscience doesn’t impact Leadership you are thinking of Treason of Tzeentch which means you can’t use your BSB re-roll and have to use the lowest leadership in the unit. So, yes, you will be stubborn on Ld9 (10 if lord is in the unit), but with no BSB re-roll. Dude, you should be okay.

In combat you are assuming every WOC player is using Nurgle Warriors which is not the case. A lot of people run Tzeentch so that they can get the 5+ parry just like you only we pay (17 ppm not 13)for that benefit. Yes, we have a Hellcannon. It functions better as monster instead of a stone thrower and stonethrowers are nowhere near as accurate as cannons.

Fallstorm
20-03-2015, 00:17
Just to set the record straight (brawlers) we dwarfs only had two players near the top (me and Phil), and I do 6 inches from the front thank you very much :D. How much skill does putting a bsb on a disk with re-rolling ward saves, or nurgle daemon princes, or grabbing as many dice as you can and saying the words "purple sun" take exactly ? Every army has good and bad units. Yes, there are some imbalances. But for the most part I love where the meta is at, everyone has a shot.

I am pumped if these rumors are true however. I would love to make a skirmish army of Brets or empire, keep my dwarfs and vamps for comp play, and go ape wild with undead legions for fun 5k-10k games unbound with tons of beer and a whole day of hilarity.
Dwarves came in higher than any WOC army. They were right outside of the top 10 and I bet any WOC you and your friend encountered your murdered probably to a man. A Dwarf was at 11 highest rated chaos was 16 and again I think that had to do with the 7 dwarf and 7 empire armies present

I will agree overall Dwarves may not do well at tournaments, but what they do is keep other people from winning. Again, yes other armies don’t sweat your gunlines. Ogres, Dark Elves, Daemons (unless they can’t hide their lord), and other armies deal. WOC march across and get killed. It is not a fun game. Not saying you are a bad sport in anyway but not fun.

sixfthoneybadger
20-03-2015, 00:46
@Fallstorm
I was just offering an opinion just like you. OKs, are a more difficult army to master. WS3 can really suck... especially against nurgle lol. OKs need to get magic off and many armies can shut it down. MF cav. are AWESOME!!! That being said they aren't juggernauts. I also play DEs and just recently dwarves. I will always have a place in my gaming heart for WoC. I play in the US. I play in a couple GTs a year, but never a Masters. It's a time issue. Have you ever thought that better generals take more difficult armies to play? Heck, a TK player just cleaned up recently at a big tournament. WoC is a newbie army. It lets a new player make a mistake and learn from it without costing them the game which could frustrate someone into quitting. If someone started out with VC or Orcs they would be overwhelmed. You can say OK are top tier, but you have to learn game mechanics at a steeper rate. Plus purple suns, dwellers, pit of shades...., and Saying WoC have it tough is just silly.

Timathius
20-03-2015, 00:55
Dwarves came in higher than any WOC army. They were right outside of the top 10 and I bet any WOC you and your friend encountered your murdered probably to a man. A Dwarf was at 11 highest rated chaos was 16 and again I think that had to do with the 7 dwarf and 7 empire armies present

I will agree overall Dwarves may not do well at tournaments, but what they do is keep other people from winning. Again, yes other armies don’t sweat your gunlines. Ogres, Dark Elves, Daemons (unless they can’t hide their lord), and other armies deal. WOC march across and get killed. It is not a fun game. Not saying you are a bad sport in anyway but not fun.

But that could be said of any army vs a hard counter to their list. Daemons v HE, vamps v ogres w/ hell heart, dwarfs v van guarding man eaters.

Anyway, I think that the point That you're missing is that woc are very easy to be good with. I'll agree that they are more difficult to be excellent with, but they are very forgiving and seem over powered to the majority of gamers who are not tournament players.

Fallstorm
20-03-2015, 01:01
@Fallstorm
I was just offering an opinion just like you. OKs, are a more difficult army to master. WS3 can really suck... especially against nurgle lol. OKs need to get magic off and many armies can shut it down. MF cav. are AWESOME!!! That being said they aren't juggernauts. I also play DEs and just recently dwarves. I will always have a place in my gaming heart for WoC. I play in the US. I play in a couple GTs a year, but never a Masters. It's a time issue. Have you ever thought that better generals take more difficult armies to play? Heck, a TK player just cleaned up recently at a big tournament. WoC is a newbie army. It lets a new player make a mistake and learn from it without costing them the game which could frustrate someone into quitting. If someone started out with VC or Orcs they would be overwhelmed. You can say OK are top tier, but you have to learn game mechanics at a steeper rate. Plus purple suns, dwellers, pit of shades...., and Saying WoC have it tough is just silly.

No problem, brother:) My issue was on “derailing the thread” statement but I was not upset about it just showing how all of this ties in.
I don’t think Ogres are difficult to master but I will agree that WOC are often recommended to new players because their playstyle is straight forward and you have less phases to worry about, but I do think WOC can be “bait and switch” army from GW standpoint in that it states they are really good at this and that until you find out all of their weaknesses and what other armies can do better. For example, with the old DE book what difference does having a WS 5 base troop make if you are facing opponents that have ASF to re-roll hits and can just check 9 Dice to get Mindrazor off. This is not to not DE players as I am well aware the army has weaknesses and I am trying to start a fledgling DE army myself :)

I think WOC are easy to play with but not necessarily easy to master. We can agree to disagree on Ogres having a steeper learning curve they have better than average access to every phase of the game. Also, their low WS (3) really does not matter because a lot times they are auto-hitting on impact hits and stomps. The init spells can be a killer though for sure.;)
I am not saying WOC are low tier. I am saying they do have it rough given the current meta of high artillery armors and numerous things that cut through armor like screams and bolt throwers, and that they are not as top tier as people for some reason think they are. I think WOC are more prone than other armies to bad match ups as the Swedish Comp rating suggests... Other armies have issues too. Lizardmen are in a bad spot right now.

My point in all of this is that for WOC and EVERY OTHER ARMY allowing allies will improve the game by shoring up the weaknesses certain armies have, but that if some communities feel the allied/unbound rules are broken then they can self-regulate using the rules. Again, I think the great think about 9th edition if done right is it will be OUR (the gamers) game. We all win.

Eddie Chaos
20-03-2015, 01:10
Unbound? So I could do all giants. Which army would that be then??? New faction. The Giant faction!!! :)

Great, thank you, an all giant army is now the only fantasy army I'm interested in playing. Its legal in Archaon, If it remains legal in 9th I may buy 10 giants and call it a 2500pts army.

how much is a giant again? (£32) ok maybe I don't want to spend £320 on the last march of the giants.

It would be pretty cool though, especially if they were all converted nicely.

Fallstorm
20-03-2015, 01:13
But that could be said of any army vs a hard counter to their list. Daemons v HE, vamps v ogres w/ hell heart, dwarfs v van guarding man eaters.

Anyway, I think that the point That you're missing is that woc are very easy to be good with. I'll agree that they are more difficult to be excellent with, but they are very forgiving and seem over powered to the majority of gamers who are not tournament players.
Yes, every army has a hard counter but I don’t feel the hard counters of other armies are so one-sided (with the exception do Daemons and probably undead too vs Light councils). Also, I think WOC have more bad match-ups than other armies. For example, The Empire and Dwarves are very hard counters to warriors, but according to the Swedish Comp person I communicated with Orcs and Goblins are hard counters for warriors too (I can definitely see this just because of the sheer amount of numbers they bring to the warriors limited numbers and those pesky doom divers), but also Ogre Kingdoms, and Vampire Counts double terrorgheist list a monster for WOC to face. I don’t think other armies have that many bad match ups.

Then we have to contend with the armies that are hard for everyone to face (Dark Elves) and the like. I will agree for a brand new player WOC is a good place to start, but from a 9th edition perspective imagine how much people would be encouraged to play and purchase models if once they learn their armies weakness (mobility for dwarves, gunlines for WOC) they could purchase models and army books to supplant those. GW makes money and we get more varied games!

P.S. As much as I hate OnG Doomdivers I still got to support my brothers of destruction in crushing you bearded stunties to smithereens if they can;)

linuvian
20-03-2015, 01:24
Does Fallstorm win a record for 6 posts in a row?

Just to poke the bear - WoC are OP, especially since they can now get Trebs (edit - with unbound). It's fluffy too! WoC should be throwing churches at people.

sixfthoneybadger
20-03-2015, 01:49
I'm just hoping vampires make it into 9th as vampires and not some sort of GW unique soul sucker. I want to do an entirely vampire army!!! Unbound could really make that cool.

the gribbly
20-03-2015, 04:20
I'm not up to date with fantasy atm, been playing strictly 40k mix of casual and competitive level since I left the game. I can only speculate how "unbound" could effect whf but I know it's mostly avoided in 40k. Instead most tourneys limit sources to 2 because unbound would be ridiculous outside of casual play. The current state of 40k is amazing imo, but opening all dexes up doesn't equalize things completely. It makes new best combinations that push out the old. There's always a pecking order. It also kills fluff pretty hard. The other issue is gw removes options so you need allies (and players naturally take the better iteration thus eliminating more sub par alternatives). Take sisters off the thorn vs warlocks.. (may be off base here again not that familiar atm but you get the idea). Essentially it turns into cherry picking.

If I were to speculate on the impact in whf of unbound I would think it would push infantry out. Heck it's kinda done that in 40k even with maelstrom objectives blended with eternal war missions, deep strike and transports etc. What does infantry offer in whf when they aren't compulsory compared to more mobile durable lethal options? If fantasy were based on objective play more than core and infantry might still survive it. Again though just speculation.

Wesser
20-03-2015, 08:02
Incidentally I've just been reading through the Warhammer throne of skulls rule pack for this year and... it has all the additional end times rules in play, I'm seriously thinking about turning up with Malekith, Nagash and a pair of steam tanks and calling it an army...

...

Could you throw in some Night Goblin Spearmen or other models with sharp edges? Your gonna need blood if sacrificing to the devil...

armyofmites
20-03-2015, 11:40
Do you think there could be information about 9th edition at Warhammer World this year? http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/events-hall/special-events/warhammer-world-grand-opening/

Zaonite
20-03-2015, 12:24
Do you think there could be information about 9th edition at Warhammer World this year? http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/events-hall/special-events/warhammer-world-grand-opening/

The main studio used to do teasers (well) in advance. It may be that they do something but I don't think it will be likely.
Considering though that rumours have pointed to May for 9th ed Fantasy, they may unveil it at the event.

Only time will tell. I am however, genuinely excited for what 9th holds for Warhammer.

CauCaSus
20-03-2015, 13:02
I would love pre-painted minis. To me I am a gamist not a hobbyist and assembling and painting miniatures I don't find that fun. This is not to say I think all miniatures should be that way but I do think it GW would make more money if they did give people the option to buy this way, especially younger people.

Ever heard of a game called Confrontation? No? Thats because they tried exactly that and it failed miserably.

theJ
20-03-2015, 13:41
Unbound, eh... I have a few thoughts about unbound, and why it kinda sorta makes sense over in 40k land...

See, the thing is, 40k army selection... isn't very good.
Oh, they have a decent concept.... it's just a really really limited concept.
The idea of the old Force Organisation Chart is to enforce strategically balanced forces - each army "should" contain a section of basic troopers, a section of heavier vehicles and/or fire support, a section of rapid responce and/or shock troopers, and a section of battlehardened elites... this is the idea, and the FOC enforces it...

The problem is, that's not the army people want to play. People don't want "one of each"(of the various sections), they want a dedicated theme and playstyle, which is mirrored across their entire force. They want a full fast attack army, or a full tank army, or a super-heavy infantry army(aka. termies), or a full walker army, or a full assault army, or a full long range army, or a full monster army...

From this perspective... the FOC... is a blatant failure. It's created to allow only a single type of army - a tactically balanced one, where every role is filled.

GWs solution? **** the rules.

Unbound seems to me to be as much a result of frustration and/or hurt feelings as it is a move for increased sales.
- "if the players think they know armybuilding so well, let's see THEM come up with better armies than us!"
Rather than build a new system to accomodate more army types, they simply tore apart their failing rules, and replaced it with a carte blanche "do whatever ya' want".

The result?
...
erm...
inconclusive, really.
While the unbound "system" solved the boredom issue that had plagued the FOC, it also brought 40ks already malignant balance issues to an entirely new, unmanagable level.
Today, 40k is a game that still works... if you play it exactly as intended - I.E. as a playing ground for two opposing forces, that have been assembled without any care for how they'll fare once they hit the table.
Even the most amateurish attempts at, well, listbuilding breaks that game completely.

So y'know what? I guess it's not all that inconclusive after all. The old system was flawed, yes, but it could still be carried by other facets of the game(visuals, fluff, etc.).
The new "system" has the potential to be greater... but is not compensated for when it fails to deliver, the way the old system did.
This would be fine, if the list-elements that break the game were not EXACTLY the ones GW insists on pushing people to pick up and play with.
Ironically, the type of group that can actually make modern 40k enjoyable is the exact opposite of the "wide-eyed, easily influenced brat" that the internet insists is what the rules are aimed towards :/


Oh, well, on to fantasyland.
Warhammer Fantasy Battles.... does not have the list building issues that 40k did/does.
There is one key element you need to remember here. No, not the percentages. Awesome though they may be, they're more akin to jam antop a pile of pancakes than the pancakes themselves... the pancakes in this terrible anology being....
*drumroll*
Forcelimitations based on rarity!

Rather than limit the types of units an army can include, WHFB limits the overall powerlevel of units.
Whether you want to build an army based on cavalry, skirmishers, warmachines, monsters, infantry, beasts, or magic, you can do that. The only thing fantasy limits are your ancient, revered relics, and other one-of-a-kind superweapons... and even those are only limited to ensure the ones you are allowed to field end up feeling appropriately "special" on the table.

The only "theme" the rules do not allow you to create is the "superspecialawesome army that has only the bestest things and none of the menial mooks"...
....and even that is kinda up in the air, once you start considering the option of taking you semi-elite cavalry choices as cores, and your "mere infantry" as your specials and rares.

Bottomline being... fantasy does not NEED unbound the way 40k kinda did. There may be some obscure theme that we struggle to represent... but none that couldn't be represented under the current system, with a bare minimum of tweaks to the lists themselves.
Introducing unbound would still give us all of the downsides that "system" has... but we'd get none of the advantages, since all those options are already available to us.
THAT is why unbound in fantasy makes no sense.

ADDENDUM: kinda makes you wonder why they didn't just port fantasy army selection rules over to 40k, eh?

sixfthoneybadger
20-03-2015, 13:55
ADDENDUM: kinda makes you wonder why they didn't just port fantasy army selection rules over to 40k, eh?[/QUOTE]

Who says they aren't doing that for 9th?

Bloodknight
20-03-2015, 14:03
From this perspective... the FOC... is a blatant failure. It's created to allow only a single type of army - a tactically balanced one, where every role is filled.

The FOC has always been a little stupid because it tries to superimpose the structure of a Space Marine company on every other army. Unbound isn't the solution either, playtesting and figuring one out for every army is.

Tau_player001
20-03-2015, 14:43
Ever heard of a game called Confrontation? No? Thats because they tried exactly that and it failed miserably.
Ever heard of Xwing ?

Bloodknight
20-03-2015, 14:56
Xwing has the Star Wars franchise, which has unbelievably more pull and general appeal than anything Warhammer. Thinking about it, it's probably the only prepainted system that hasn't failed so far.

Tau_player001
20-03-2015, 14:57
And warhammer has definitly a lot of more pull than Confrontation. That's why people shouldn't pull comparisons out of thin air as it magically means it will fail/succeed just because a different project did/didn't manage to make it work.

the gribbly
20-03-2015, 18:25
I cringe every time I hear about porting whf anything into 40k. It's not the broken system apparently. It's actually insanely cool and I always felt the better balanced because there's many ways to win not just through killing more. Fantasy was/is great in other ways like the nuances of movement, flee reactions etc. But things like percentage based anything sucks for games like 40k as does unkillable characters with multiple saves in a victory point game. Anyway getting off topic now. I hope 9th isn't as bad as people predict.

The_Real_Chris
20-03-2015, 20:04
Re-Painted models

Ever heard of a game called Confrontation? No? Thats because they tried exactly that and it failed miserably.

I would happily pay the current GW mini price for painted models...

Spiney Norman
21-03-2015, 08:59
Xwing has the Star Wars franchise, which has unbelievably more pull and general appeal than anything Warhammer. Thinking about it, it's probably the only prepainted system that hasn't failed so far.

Plus the FlightPath system is a really strong game mechanic and the prepainted minitatures are of excellent quality.

I'm fairly sure that GW will not go for prepaints for a few reasons
1. They make too much money from the paints/brushes range which would become superfluous
2. Like it or not GW is more and more championing the painting & modelling side of the hobby over the gaming side, moving over to prepaints would be a complete reversal of that because prepaints only cater to the needs of the gamer and currently the core rules mechanics for 40k (and now wfb as well, thanks to the end times) are ultra-shaky.


The FOC has always been a little stupid because it tries to superimpose the structure of a Space Marine company on every other army. Unbound isn't the solution either, playtesting and figuring one out for every army is.

I do agree to some extent, but there have always been ways to get around that by allowing units to hop into different FoC slots, or more recently, the introduction of different formations and detachments, unbound was an ultra-lazy concept and one more nail in the coffin of game-balance.

Just Tony
21-03-2015, 15:59
The FOC has always been a little stupid because it tries to superimpose the structure of a Space Marine company on every other army. Unbound isn't the solution either, playtesting and figuring one out for every army is.

The FOC isn't stupid, it just pisses off the average gamer that wants to spam all the rare/elite stuff. Anyone who understands actual military composition and/or has served in a military force knows that you have a TON of regular bog infantryman per every other type of unit. We also wouldn't field five brigades of Special Forces. No military even has that capability.

Tau_player001
21-03-2015, 16:09
The FOC isn't stupid, it just pisses off the average gamer that wants to spam all the rare/elite stuff. Anyone who understands actual military composition and/or has served in a military force knows that you have a TON of regular bog infantryman per every other type of unit. We also wouldn't field five brigades of Special Forces. No military even has that capability.

Everybody who has been in the military know that the so hated "spam" is basically a must and something quite normal on any military formation (it was fun on 5th getting bad looks because i played mech "spam" which was not really that different from nowadays ground army compositions). And most of the units that see combat, are the elite units, while core troops are more garrison/occuppy than about fighting.

Tau_player001
21-03-2015, 16:12
Plus the FlightPath system is a really strong game mechanic and the prepainted minitatures are of excellent quality.

Here is the thing. You guys seem to forget that most Star Wars based games had been very niche or flopped hard. The difference between those is the quality of the game itself, not the exposure due to the Star Wars franchise. Warhammer always had way more exposure on any of the FLGS and if their game was actually any good, they could get new clients and zoned out any competitor, including Xwing.

That being said, having quality starships paint is far easier than infantry models, which that, paired with being obviously handpainted on China, help to FFG to make profit from Xwing, not just "it's star wars!". Seriously, don't forget all those games that were also "star wars!" and didn't make it.

Emperor Karl Franz
21-03-2015, 16:37
Yeah, it wasn't all that long ago that Wizards of the Coast had a Star Wars miniature game with pre-painted Stormtroopers, Darth Vader, and so on. What happened to that game?

Stegadeth
21-03-2015, 18:59
Yeah, it wasn't all that long ago that Wizards of the Coast had a Star Wars miniature game with pre-painted Stormtroopers, Darth Vader, and so on. What happened to that game?

And don't ger me started on bemoaning the loss of WEG STar Wars Roleplaying game. Oh, how I still love their sourcebooks with all of the technical information.

Bloodknight
21-03-2015, 19:38
I do agree to some extent, but there have always been ways to get around that by allowing units to hop into different FoC slots, or more recently, the introduction of different formations and detachments

The FOC isn't stupid, it just pisses off the average gamer that wants to spam all the rare/elite stuff. Anyone who understands actual military composition and/or has served in a military force knows that you have a TON of regular bog infantryman per every other type of unit. We also wouldn't field five brigades of Special Forces. No military even has that capability.

That sort of shows that the FOC does not work well for every army, because it's very restricted (not restrictive). "Take 15 for a slot" or "these Elite dudes can be troops" tells me that the army in question would have needed a different organigram to work. What I mean is that there are a lot of crutches and workarounds in the game that would be unneeded if Eldar, Necrons or whatever did not have to conform to the way Space Marines are organized. Just look at all the shenanigans needed for the Astra Militarum or IG to work in the confines of the FOC. And don't get me started on formations...

Just Tony
21-03-2015, 21:40
Everybody who has been in the military know that the so hated "spam" is basically a must and something quite normal on any military formation (it was fun on 5th getting bad looks because i played mech "spam" which was not really that different from nowadays ground army compositions). And most of the units that see combat, are the elite units, while core troops are more garrison/occuppy than about fighting.

...

Wait, what?

On the game field, yes spamming units that work is a must. Of course it is. On the battlefield it works differently, and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that average infantrymen were NOT garrison troops while elite badasses did all the work. Anyone who believes this absurdity is sorely mistaken. And there's a drastic difference between running a mechanized unit (ie. transported) and a tank company completely unsupported by anything else. Real world, that force would die in droves before being able to inflict even mission essential damage.

Just Tony
21-03-2015, 21:43
That sort of shows that the FOC does not work well for every army, because it's very restricted (not restrictive). "Take 15 for a slot" or "these Elite dudes can be troops" tells me that the army in question would have needed a different organigram to work. What I mean is that there are a lot of crutches and workarounds in the game that would be unneeded if Eldar, Necrons or whatever did not have to conform to the way Space Marines are organized. Just look at all the shenanigans needed for the Astra Militarum or IG to work in the confines of the FOC. And don't get me started on formations...

It's restrictive because it was based off of a real world example. The game itself is played by people who want to crush the opposition at all costs. Make a superhero game and give players carte blanche to pick their army and see what happens. "Oh, my Avengers team? 15 Ms. Marvels." THAT is the kind of thing it was there to restrict, they just chose to throw that out the window with the current unbound since the FOC hampered sales of the newest shiny thing.

Tau_player001
21-03-2015, 22:01
I was on the army. Average infantrymen don't fight anymore aside the sporadic cross bullets in the wars we fight today. That's a fact, sorry to burst your bubble of heroic combat awaiting you after you join the army and are granted a mission.

A mechanized infatry company does not have battle main tanks. You combine both companies on a battlefield which as i pointed out mech that was called as spam (mechanized infantry + battle main tanks + land sopeeders "aerial support" + Rifleman artillery pieces -------- mech spam), But sure, keep spouting ad hominems.

If we talk about the battlefield, it's a combination of units, but it will always be thematic and repition will be present (mechanized infantry + main battle tanks + aerial support) (regular infantry + elite troops on dense/rough terrain or when you lack aerial support). You don't just have 1 unit of regular infantry, 1 unit of mechanized infantry, 1 battle tank, 1 helicopter, 1 artillery piece, and 1 cavalry unit from last century because why the freck not. You have the tools to the kind of battle you will have, and repetition is rarely a bad thing but the oppossite since it gives reliance.

So while i can agree with you that the FOC can represent a regular formation quite decently, it's only thrue theme that you achieve that.

Just Tony
21-03-2015, 23:29
I was on the army. Average infantrymen don't fight anymore aside the sporadic cross bullets in the wars we fight today. That's a fact, sorry to burst your bubble of heroic combat awaiting you after you join the army and are granted a mission.

A mechanized infatry company does not have battle main tanks. You combine both companies on a battlefield which as i pointed out mech that was called as spam (mechanized infantry + battle main tanks + land sopeeders "aerial support" + Rifleman artillery pieces -------- mech spam), But sure, keep spouting ad hominems.

If we talk about the battlefield, it's a combination of units, but it will always be thematic and repition will be present (mechanized infantry + main battle tanks + aerial support) (regular infantry + elite troops on dense/rough terrain or when you lack aerial support). You don't just have 1 unit of regular infantry, 1 unit of mechanized infantry, 1 battle tank, 1 helicopter, 1 artillery piece, and 1 cavalry unit from last century because why the freck not. You have the tools to the kind of battle you will have, and repetition is rarely a bad thing but the oppossite since it gives reliance.

So while i can agree with you that the FOC can represent a regular formation quite decently, it's only thrue theme that you achieve that.

You WERE in the Army, I still AM in the army, and have been since 1992. Not gonna touch the smartass comment from the first line, just color me indignant/offended.

I'm also well aware of how combined arms work, the difference is that you don't see a mission going with everyone carrying MK 19 grenade launchers and 240Bs, THAT is the kind of spam that I was railing against, that's the kind of spam that you see perpetuated in listbuilding now, and that's the kind of spam that Unbound promotes.

Bloodknight
21-03-2015, 23:31
THAT is the kind of thing it was there to restrict,

I know. Not sure if my English is that bad, but I said that the problem of the way the FOC works is that it is decidedly not one-size-fits-all. Not sure if you were around in 3rd edition, but they had to make quite a lot of contortions to make armies fit into it at all and a lot of them felt wrong. Which also led to silly stuff like a Space Marine army topping out in one FOC at 4000 points-ish while Dark Eldar actually had difficulties filling 2000 points to get access to a 2nd FOC with more troops to spend points on. That's all I'm saying. It's the organization of a Space Marine army for a game, not a real army (and yes, I served, too. Luftwaffe, though, so we had like 2000 actual grunts with transport vehicles in the whole shebang, a tiny portion compared to the tech staff). Why do you think the whole tank squadron thing came up? Not because it's cool, but because IG doesn't work in the basic FOC. It never did, not even in the 3rd edition rulebook. WFB has always been more elegant in that regard.

Just Tony
22-03-2015, 00:46
I was around for 3rd Ed. and it's the standard by which I judge pretty much everything 40K nowadays. The issue with what you're describing is that 2nd Ed. led to a TON of elite army builds, and that was made difficult to impossible by the FOC because of the focus on where certain units lied as far as classification. Now they wound up making damn near every appendix list you could imagine to compensate, but the gist of it was to get a focus on what a core army should look like.


And I have to agree that WFB has done this better. Well, starting with 6th Ed. they did. 5th had the same problems that 2nd Ed. 40K had, they just managed to fix it without having to change the game dynamic completely. I'm more than a little worried about 9th attempting to do that.

leopard
22-03-2015, 00:46
Stupid thing with the FoC... there was no need for it to be in the basic book, it should have been in the individual codexes, then the individual books could be different, and once you have that as a concept.. a book can have several...

Solves most of the problem easily, then have a couple of different 'versions' , say one for open battles, one for urban, one for assaulting defences, one for defending then, maybe one for scout/raid missions and so on.


Unbound as a concept is not a problem, you were half way there with all the formations (essentially just a fixed FoC anyway) and all the various special rules to get round it - just needs players to have a bit of self control and perhaps agree before the game what sort of game they want - its hopeless for tournaments but the game itself is a bit iffy for that without work anyway


Think of how Flames of War does it, you decide to play say British in the late war period (D-Day onwards for those who don't play the game), ok so you now have to pick if you want an Infantry, Mechanised Infantry or Armoured list, and each of them has many sub lists, e.g. the British have two main types of tank list, a 'tank company' and an 'armoured company', they do and take different things.

But the concept is the same - you have boxes, you must fill some of them (typically two & a HQ) then you have other boxes which are optional, however, you may have a box titled 'Machine Guns', this may allow you to bring some machine guns - or nothing, thats it - the point, that is magic [ the list defines what slot something is in, not the unit entry. A platoon of tanks may be 'combat' (essentially troops), they could be a weapons platoon, or support, in one list an 'Armour' option could have six or seven options (of which you can select just one), each of which could have a lot more options.

Its s similar concept, but much better executed - by removing the entry type from the unit and putting it in the list it becomes a lot easier to chop things about, Say elite commandos may be troops in a commando company list, so you would have to have two of them, in another list you may only be allowed one unit of them, and to take that you may have to forgo taking something they share a slot with (maybe say another elite infantry unit)

mrpiggywinkles52
22-03-2015, 00:51
IMO 9th will be something resembling WOTR and LOTR. Let me explain.

There will essentially be two games in the one world. Skirmish and mass battle. These Skirmish games will use the same models that can be used in the mass battle games. So essentially I dive in, buy a few heroes a monster and maybe a box or two of troops and can play in a skirmish environment. Particularly useful for storytelling. Then if I ever want to play the more strategic, bigger and better version of the game I can slowly build upon my skirmish force and whatever speed I desire because I can still play skrimish games while I'm waiting on the time or money to leap into the big leagues.

I don't think we'll see any armies squatted. Some will be combined for sure. Ogres and OaG sounds about right. Brets and Empire will be combined, Daemons beastmen and WoC seem likely and maybe we'll see dwarfs also thrown in with Empire. I think the Aesthetic will change a lot for some armies. WoC, Daemons, Beastmen (or the combined legions as they'll be in 9th),High elves, Lizardmen, Orcs and Goblins, Skaven and undead will likely look fairly similar in 9th. They all look different enough to generic fantasy races that GW can protect them under their IP. I think Dwarfs and DE will see a shift towards looking more like the newer models in their ranges which are far more IP protectable, Dwarfs in particular now have a very unique look and the models released with the new book look VERY different to the old ones. So that seems likely. Anything else that I didn't mention I think will change dramatically in terms of looks.

As for if they'll squat the units within your army, I predict not all of them will be squatted. I reckon we'll see some of them removed that don't fit the new aesthetic. So whilst the dwarf warriors might disappear in favor of a new kit at LEAST if not be removed entirely, the Ironbreakers, Gyrocopters and hammerers will remain. Whilst your Orc boyz will probably be staying you might need to change some of your Goblins. That type of thing so as not to completely alienate the older playerbase.

As for the dreaded round bases, if they are doing Skirmish it seems likely they'll have them. I reckon we'll see WOTR-esque movement trays, so basically rather than the blocks we have now they'll be rectangular or square trays with slots to place your round based models in. I don't think GW are stupid though, we'll probably see them selling individual packs of round bases and some sort of glue remover or something at the release of 9th so that older players can transfer their collection into the new base size.

That's just my 2 cents though.

Tau_player001
22-03-2015, 03:02
You WERE in the Army, I still AM in the army, and have been since 1992. Not gonna touch the smartass comment from the first line, just color me indignant/offended.

I'm also well aware of how combined arms work, the difference is that you don't see a mission going with everyone carrying MK 19 grenade launchers and 240Bs, THAT is the kind of spam that I was railing against, that's the kind of spam that you see perpetuated in listbuilding now, and that's the kind of spam that Unbound promotes.
About unbound, i had already made my opinion clear on this thread, which is basically i am against it (i don't know why you bring it up, when i was talking about 5th, where you would have 5-6 man squads with 1-2 specialist weapons on a razorback, and you would have 4-6 squads of this, which is pretty standard for mechanized infantry on real life too, combined with predators/speeders/riflemen dread), or your 20 year old experience also differs with mine in this?). But that's not to say the FOC is perfect, it has been a deterrent to assymetrical development of the different codex. It was perfect for SM and IG, but outside of those two (and even for some SM chapters i would say they weren't good) it has been pinning down army building and codex design too much.

I would argue that warhammer fantasy, from a gameplay perspective (without end of times ofc), is on a much better position when it comes to army design because it doesn't have a rigid FOC system, with the % being much more laid back towards army buildings. That's not to say i find it perfect, and i would really like if they explored different % for different races or different max units, like they did in the past with High Elves.

And yes, there are people who want to play elite armies. That's was one of the reasons why SM were so popular. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, it's how its implemented.

sixfthoneybadger
22-03-2015, 03:18
I think taking the core tax away and 50% Lord Choice is about right. After that I doubt it really matters. Games would balance themselves out.

Fallstorm
22-03-2015, 05:10
I think taking the core tax away and 50% Lord Choice is about right. After that I doubt it really matters. Games would balance themselves out.

The addition of 50% Lords and heroes was a good move. I think this should remain in the game in 9th.

The_Real_Chris
22-03-2015, 18:31
Again, the best stab GW has had with army creation was Epic, where each list was built in a different way. For example marines - up to 1/3 of the army could be Imperial navy and titans, for the rest choose any formation you like in any amount you like up to the points value. For Imperial Guard, again the 1/3 but for the rest you had to pick companies and each company released 2 support formations. And so on. Bit of course this does need man hours to test and design and that is an expense GW doesn't want.

HelloKitty
22-03-2015, 18:44
Everybody who has been in the military know that the so hated "spam" is basically a must and something quite normal on any military formation (it was fun on 5th getting bad looks because i played mech "spam" which was not really that different from nowadays ground army compositions). And most of the units that see combat, are the elite units, while core troops are more garrison/occuppy than about fighting.

My military experience was quite different than what you have posted.

CariadocThorne
22-03-2015, 20:49
I think taking the core tax away and 50% Lord Choice is about right. After that I doubt it really matters. Games would balance themselves out.

Why remove the requirement for core?

Why not stop it being a tax by making core more useful, like having tactical objectives which need to be grabbed by core.

sixfthoneybadger
22-03-2015, 21:01
I'm not saying core choices aren't necessary, but I do not want to be forced in having them. Drop the core tax and keep the 50% Lord and that in my opinion opens up the game.

Just Tony
22-03-2015, 21:53
I'm not saying core choices aren't necessary, but I do not want to be forced in having them. Drop the core tax and keep the 50% Lord and that in my opinion opens up the game.

Better yet, get rid of the Core tax AND the 50% limit on Lords and Heroes.

Spiney Norman
22-03-2015, 22:45
Better yet, get rid of the Core tax AND the 50% limit on Lords and Heroes.

Right, who needs balance in a wargame anyway right, just let everyone take all the OP stuff they want...

I somehow think the design team have enjoyed writing the end times books, I don't think I've ever seen a core edition crash and burn so hard, not even when chaos daemons destroyed 7th.

HelloKitty
22-03-2015, 23:28
I think that if they removed "core tax" that I'd be pretty much done with the game. I think that its neat for some scenarios but I'm not interested in having every game be an elite powerlist on powerlist type matchup. Core is supposed to represent an army's typical set of units. In my opinion 25% is not enough as it is but its at least a nod to some type of narrative.

The bearded one
22-03-2015, 23:58
I think that if they removed "core tax" that I'd be pretty much done with the game. I think that its neat for some scenarios but I'm not interested in having every game be an elite powerlist on powerlist type matchup. Core is supposed to represent an army's typical set of units. In my opinion 25% is not enough as it is but its at least a nod to some type of narrative.

I always prefer having some fodder and relatively easy to kill soldiers in my list, rather than everything consisting of hard-to-kill models. It simply dampens the fun of the game if you or your opponent can only meekly scratch at your units and occasionally kill a knight or cause a wound on some tough monster. There's just little sense of accomplishment during play, because you're barely causing wounds - even if the enemy army in total doesn't have many wounds. I'd rather face a model with 8 wounds, than one with 2 and a 1+ rerollable armoursave. If you remove the core percentage, every army can make their own equivalent of a WoC Chariot army.

"Have fun playing against my display army of 10 high toughness high save high fighting prowess models!"

I was building a White wolf knight army, but after the first knights I kinda reconsidered and I now added archers, halbediers, and greatswords, so that it's not just 1+ saves and artillery.


2000 points of demigryphs, cannons and steamtanks, woohoo!

HelloKitty
23-03-2015, 00:09
I think from the perspective of a lot of guys that want to remove core percentages, that something akin to the woc chariot army is the goal. The lower the model count the better.

The bearded one
23-03-2015, 00:26
Something like Warmachine/Hordes might be more up their alley; those armies are something like 20-30 models, and the game is probably better designed and structured. I like the mass-battle aspect to Whfb.

Or else they could try Tomb King chariot armies.

soots
23-03-2015, 00:27
Im trying to think from a business perspective here.

I believe their primary goal will be to make the game more accessible.

FFS, we have been playing for 15 years and a lot of our armies still havent been fully painted. 200 troops will take a few years to paint, let alone the time needed to collect them.

I think the removal of restrictions pretty much allows people to buy miniatures that they favour and paint them, then slowly through time allow them to collect troops and other more "boring fillers".

Id imagine just having characters really corners you in, but atleast you can have a fully painted army of 20 models. and then you mix and match the fillers to make your army feel more realistic. And you're probably playing with the same gaming group who may started the same time as you, so you share the same restrictions and what not.

The bearded one
23-03-2015, 00:30
I think what whfb could use in that respect is having a more accessible skirmish-sized entry game. Whfb doesn't scale well to lower points, while 40k does that loads better.

HelloKitty
23-03-2015, 00:31
I realize that some armies can have 200 troops - but in a standard sized game of warhammer those are not common. If 2000 points is standard, only a small number of armies will roll in with 200 troops. I know my elven armies sit at around 50-70 models at 2000 points.

Ogre and chaos armies can have model counts equal to warmachine standard armies.

A fantasy version of 'unbound' that 40k has is to me inevitable (the rules are in the archaon end times book) but a game where unbound is standard and the majority of armies were tiny little power armies would produce a very stark schism in the game's players, particularly those that want to play a mass battle game and not another warmachine clone.

Another big thing missing is that skirmish rules aren't "standard". You can play killteams in 40k but its hard getting people to do that because its not 'standard'.

Just Tony
23-03-2015, 01:24
Right, who needs balance in a wargame anyway right, just let everyone take all the OP stuff they want...

I somehow think the design team have enjoyed writing the end times books, I don't think I've ever seen a core edition crash and burn so hard, not even when chaos daemons destroyed 7th.

I should have held up the sarcasm sign, but I doubt there's too many people who would be opposed to it.


I think that if they removed "core tax" that I'd be pretty much done with the game. I think that its neat for some scenarios but I'm not interested in having every game be an elite powerlist on powerlist type matchup. Core is supposed to represent an army's typical set of units. In my opinion 25% is not enough as it is but its at least a nod to some type of narrative.


I think from the perspective of a lot of guys that want to remove core percentages, that something akin to the woc chariot army is the goal. The lower the model count the better.

Damn it, we're not supposed to think alike, remember? Mortal enemies or something like that?

HelloKitty
23-03-2015, 01:40
Mortal kombat style

Tarrell
23-03-2015, 01:51
I think the up-to 50% was a great call for heroes, however playing against all rare/ special unit army's leads to spamming an OP.
In the 9th rare and special should be adjusted into something similar to 40k's system.
Monstrous infantry:
Warmachines:
Cavalry/ Fast movers;
Giant Monstrosities;

EDIT* then in each faction eg Elves can take 20% core, 50% heroes and 2 Fast movers, 1 warmachine or 1 Giant Monstrosities;.
Empire of man: 25% core, 50% heroes and 1 Fast movers or 2 Monstrous infantry, 2 warmachines or 1 Giant Monstrosities;
Chaos: 20% core 50% heroes and, 2 Monstrous infantry or 1 Giant Monstrosities; 1 Cavalry/ Fast movers or 1 Monstrous infantry:
etc etc

Col. Tartleton
23-03-2015, 06:03
As long as they adjust point costs appropriately an unbound system is fine.

The reason my list shouldn't just be a bunch of chariots is that chariots are countered by X (say Spears) and bad against Y (say Cavalry) and pretty much everyone runs some X (Spears) and some Y (Cavalry) in their list which means spamming chariots isn't effective against most lists.

Or because even though Chariots are good, there are reduced returns on your investment as you take more and more of them.

Each army should have a basic structure that works for them which you can tinker with based on your specific unit and character choices. Like the default meta build of Wood Elves should be relatively elite mobile units that win through attrition and evasion. You can emphasize range or melee, infantry or cavalry, elves or spirits, but its still going to be a glass cannon with ways to avoid getting shattered. If you invest too much in a single one of those options you're going to get killed. All spirits? Fire is not your friend and fire should be something everyone can take.

But if I want to run all chariots in disregard of their effectiveness because chariots are hella cool I don't see a problem with that any more than all infantry or all cavalry or whatever.

Wurfelrolle
23-03-2015, 06:23
I think taking the core tax away and 50% Lord Choice is about right. After that I doubt it really matters. Games would balance themselves out.

I've always felt that WHFB would balance out better if the requirement was 50% Core, and the other 50% spent however you want on Characters, Special and Rares. I've always felt it was strange that your "core" troops were so little of an army, and the "special and rare", which by their very definition should not be commonly fielded, fully defined the flavor of an army. WHFB got so much better when it stopped being Herohammer, and now we're (likely) back right where we started.

50% characters starts making the game too much like WarmaHordes, going total Unbound pretty much gets us all the way there, especially when considering the style of recent model releases. This isn't WHF BATTLES, it's just a Warhammer Generic-Skirmish game.

Wesser
23-03-2015, 08:20
But if I want to run all chariots in disregard of their effectiveness because chariots are hella cool I don't see a problem with that any more than all infantry or all cavalry or whatever.

Suspension of Disbelief?


I mean you may just see models on a board, but I see for instance the forces of Vampire X against Chaos Lord Y battling over Target Z for Reasons M.

In a game that's never absolutely balanced the narrative is important. Take that away and you got... well a forgettable game really.


Now it can work with Unbound. Lets imagine a Blood Dragon Vampire - who only raised the worthy from the dead - hence his army don't consist of skeletons, but only vampires and wights. Okay the narrative sorta works. Start cramming in Crypt Horrors and Mortis Engines the theme breaks down and what was a themed army is suddenly just an opponent who didn't want to deal with army weaknesses (VC Core Tax).

If you want to play Random Assortment of Models Vs. Random Assortment of Models instead of Blood Dragon Vampires vs. The Forces of Chaos then good for you. Some of us just require more than that

ScruffMan
23-03-2015, 08:57
I have been away from the game for a fair time now (over 15 years actually but have always read the odd rule or army book during that time) but must say the rumours of 9th have caught my interest quite significantly and are tempting me to get back into it.

Can understand anger if your army (or even favourite models) is being blitzed though and I can certainly see Games Workshop doing that (with a wee bit of support initially which slowly just fades away until the dreaded "no longer supported" announcement is made.

Also, no restrictions on army lists does sound a bit silly, yeah. Sure have some rules for that in case somebody wants a campaign or fluffy game where such a thing makes sense but don't make it the way the game just is. Players really should have the "bravery" to do that sort of thing themselves without needing official rules though.

Will wait and see and will definitely buy the rulebook, may bring me back into the game (my wallet hopes not!)

Gorbad Ironclaw
23-03-2015, 12:18
I always thought that the concept of "core tax" or forcing people to take things was basically a result of flawed design. Make me want to take those things and you don't need a set of army composition rules that force me to take them. If Elf spears, skeletons, whatever is a genuinely good choice then people will take them. Sure, some people might prefer to run an army of say Wights or Black Guards or big gribblies or whatever but if those choices aren't just automatically better does that matter?

Warhammer armies are small enough that any decent warlord should be able to flood the field with whatever he wants anyway. If your warlord can't put 50-60 elite troops in the field or a handful of big gribbles he isn't much of a warlord anyway.

The_Real_Chris
23-03-2015, 12:30
Something like Warmachine/Hordes might be more up their alley; those armies are something like 20-30 models, and the game is probably better designed and structured. I like the mass-battle aspect to Whfb.

Or else they could try Tomb King chariot armies.

To be honest if you want WFB at 3rd ed size there is God of battles ready and waiting.

Warmachine is the next step down I guess.

Both though highlight you are trying to enter a market with other players, and by nuking the setting what is your draw? Models? Because given GW track record I find it hard to beleive it will be rules.

Wesser
23-03-2015, 13:11
I always thought that the concept of "core tax" or forcing people to take things was basically a result of flawed design. Make me want to take those things and you don't need a set of army composition rules that force me to take them. If Elf spears, skeletons, whatever is a genuinely good choice then people will take them. Sure, some people might prefer to run an army of say Wights or Black Guards or big gribblies or whatever but if those choices aren't just automatically better does that matter?

Warhammer armies are small enough that any decent warlord should be able to flood the field with whatever he wants anyway. If your warlord can't put 50-60 elite troops in the field or a handful of big gribbles he isn't much of a warlord anyway.

Wow.... well yea I suppose some the lacking Core units could be made more desirable... armies such as WoC and Wood Elves barely have a Core Tax, while it's fairly harsh on VC


Apart from that a general rarely have the luxury of being to field the army he wants outside of Soldier's Heaven, and if you only fielded elites in every battle well first you very soon wouldn't have elites anymore (and how would the common grunts evolve to elites with no experience?).

If a Necromancer only have access to graveyards filled with schmooks he can hardly raise an all-wight army either.


At the end it comes down to such units actually being in short supply. We may not agree, but part of the fun of the game is overcoming an army's shortcomings through tactics rather than listbuilding, and something like a Empire army with no State Troops is always to feel odd to play against because it ain't really The Empire, but some goofy spin-off you can't relate to.

HelloKitty
23-03-2015, 13:40
At the end it comes down to such units actually being in short supply. We may not agree, but part of the fun of the game is overcoming an army's shortcomings through tactics rather than listbuilding, and something like a Empire army with no State Troops is always to feel odd to play against because it ain't really The Empire, but some goofy spin-off you can't relate to.

This is how I see it as well and wish it was something more common. Or maybe its that I'm old and when I started in this hobby that was what you did, whereas today the cherry picking is pretty much off the leash and has been for sometime.

TheMartyr451
23-03-2015, 14:11
I would prefer something like this to happen. The prospect of armies getting "Squatted" as it were is terrible, especially for Bretonnia and Lizardmen. :/

Just Tony
23-03-2015, 15:33
This is how I see it as well and wish it was something more common. Or maybe its that I'm old and when I started in this hobby that was what you did, whereas today the cherry picking is pretty much off the leash and has been for sometime.

OR we're used to a game based on actual real world military structure and composition. Face it, we're old soldiers.

HelloKitty
23-03-2015, 17:25
Yeah that's true. I have said that a few times over the past month - that the game and the hobby have passed me by :)

Just Tony
23-03-2015, 18:05
That's why my brother and I are going back to 6th edition. It's at least manageable and focused more on fair gaming. I know you don't agree, but that's where we're at. Now to recruit some of our old gaming club...

HelloKitty
23-03-2015, 18:09
I think 6th centered around ravening hordes is a good place to start. I had a lot of fun with 6th edition in the first two or three years. It was what came after that kind of burnt me.

TheDanish
24-03-2015, 15:45
I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who liked 6th/7th a lot. I thought it was my rose-tinted goggles, since I started WHFB with 6th when I was really young. But it seems it was simply a superior rules system.

Gorbad Ironclaw
24-03-2015, 17:42
Wow.... well yea I suppose some the lacking Core units could be made more desirable... armies such as WoC and Wood Elves barely have a Core Tax, while it's fairly harsh on VC


Apart from that a general rarely have the luxury of being to field the army he wants outside of Soldier's Heaven, and if you only fielded elites in every battle well first you very soon wouldn't have elites anymore (and how would the common grunts evolve to elites with no experience?).

If a Necromancer only have access to graveyards filled with schmooks he can hardly raise an all-wight army either.


At the end it comes down to such units actually being in short supply. We may not agree, but part of the fun of the game is overcoming an army's shortcomings through tactics rather than listbuilding, and something like a Empire army with no State Troops is always to feel odd to play against because it ain't really The Empire, but some goofy spin-off you can't relate to.

Well one of the older concepts was that the action you see on the tabletop is really only part of a much bigger battle. So you could easily have hundreds of state troops just off to the left, but they are busy holding off the flanking horde of beastmen so you only get to see the bit where the Knights Panthers crash into the advancing Chaos Warriors.

You can easily (and deliberately) explain pretty much anything you like. What we are really talking about is personal preference in terms of army construction. The 'realism' argument to me at least falls apart when you think about how few models are on the table. If an army is really several thousand if not tens of thousand of troops strong then the ~100 you see on the table really could be anything. I don't know, to me it just seems like almost any kind of force composition is plausible/believable from a background stand point. The problem comes when one player wants to see a lot of grunts supported by a few elite pieces and another player wants to field a small force of elite pieces. But who is 'correct'?

Hence why I think that you would be better off making sure that there were multiple good choices or viable different options rather than just forcing people to take X 'because'. Or even go the route PP went down. Each commander comes with X amount of extra points to be spent on Y type of units (Jacks and Beasts in WM/H). If taking an Empire captain gave you 100 points to spent on state troops then it becomes a very different discussion.

Wesser
25-03-2015, 08:51
Well one of the older concepts was that the action you see on the tabletop is really only part of a much bigger battle. So you could easily have hundreds of state troops just off to the left, but they are busy holding off the flanking horde of beastmen so you only get to see the bit where the Knights Panthers crash into the advancing Chaos Warriors.

You can easily (and deliberately) explain pretty much anything you like. What we are really talking about is personal preference in terms of army construction. The 'realism' argument to me at least falls apart when you think about how few models are on the table. If an army is really several thousand if not tens of thousand of troops strong then the ~100 you see on the table really could be anything. I don't know, to me it just seems like almost any kind of force composition is plausible/believable from a background stand point. The problem comes when one player wants to see a lot of grunts supported by a few elite pieces and another player wants to field a small force of elite pieces. But who is 'correct'?


I wonder if there exist an English version of "Erasmus Montanus".....

A 300 year old novel which basically say that while you can explain or justify basically anything you want through logic, you can't expect your audience to understand or relate to that logic. Through logic I could probably "prove" that playing Warhammer is the reason for mankind's existence, but how many could relate to that?

When I look at the battlefield after deployment I can easily visualize the thousands of men that every unit represents. I have a much tougher time getting the feeling that my Wood Elves forces clashes with The Empire if it's all made up of knights, or against an Undead force that exclusively fields Vampiric units.

There can be more than one way to build an army, but without it's iconic troops an army is hard to identify and relate to. Oh sure, you can say that your army represents a Crusade Force (even if it still includes cannons), and while themes are all well and good, there is a limit to how far you can stray from an army's archetype without ruining it's identity.

I'm asking for armies to be something a little more than pieces of plastic here. If I wanted games of featureless, fluffless units I'd probably be playing chess. It's very possible that 9th will allow you to field whatever miniatures you want however you want. But trust me. Total freedom gets boring very very fast

jtrowell
25-03-2015, 10:31
ADDENDUM: kinda makes you wonder why they didn't just port fantasy army selection rules over to 40k, eh?

I think that one reason might be that using any % system would make many current armies illegal, as the current slot system combined with the many big vehicule kits allows the non core slots to hold very large percent of the total force.

Imagine if elite were limited to 25%, and you current army spammed big things making your elite 75% of your total points. You would suddently find that you couldn't field all 3 of your big 50£+ kits in a normal sized non unbound game.

Snake1311
25-03-2015, 10:32
I think the up-to 50% was a great call for heroes, however playing against all rare/ special unit army's leads to spamming an OP.

And what happens when the "OP" is the heroes? Most armies were already pushing up against that 25% cap anyway.

50% for Lords I can see (encourage dragons in standard games and suchlike, its got a strong cool factor), but 50% for Heroes was stupid, stupid, stupid, and only led to spam.

Ah well, its all gone now.

Wesser
25-03-2015, 12:51
And what happens when the "OP" is the heroes? Most armies were already pushing up against that 25% cap anyway.

50% for Lords I can see (encourage dragons in standard games and suchlike, its got a strong cool factor), but 50% for Heroes was stupid, stupid, stupid, and only led to spam.

Ah well, its all gone now.

Aye, I often lamented struggling to field a Zombie Dragon in standard games, but overall we didn't need to be able to take 75% characters.

But do we really need to free up those 25% core points for an Empire player to afford the 3rd unit Demigryphs and an additional Nurgle DP for WoC?

logan054
25-03-2015, 13:04
And what happens when the "OP" is the heroes? Most armies were already pushing up against that 25% cap anyway.

50% for Lords I can see (encourage dragons in standard games and suchlike, its got a strong cool factor), but 50% for Heroes was stupid, stupid, stupid, and only led to spam.

Ah well, its all gone now.

I knew I liked the sword of anti-heroes for a reason :D


Aye, I often lamented struggling to field a Zombie Dragon in standard games, but overall we didn't need to be able to take 75% characters.

But do we really need to free up those 25% core points for an Empire player to afford the 3rd unit Demigryphs and an additional Nurgle DP for WoC?

You're playing the wrong people then. That kinda stuff is amusing every now, it will get boring, especially if people like that can't get games.

popisdead
27-03-2015, 20:24
9th edition won’t be one game as we know Warhammer now. There will be three
different playstyles. GW wants to add some of the elements that have made 40K so popular. Think kill-team, formations
and so forth. With the hope of fantasy becoming more popular. And the game will be played in three different time sets:
Pre-apocalypse, apocalypse and finally post-apocalypse.

This is exactly what I'm hoping, it makes the most sense to me and also makes the most sense looking at how they could inline Fantasy with 40k more, as well as selling pre-canned Detachments.

I hope everything you said in your post is true. I really do.

CariadocThorne
28-03-2015, 12:25
You're playing the wrong people then. That kinda stuff is amusing every now, it will get boring, especially if people like that can't get games.

While I agree with the sentiment, the fact is that an aweful lot of players don't have the luxury of being picky about their opponents, and there's a lot of the "wrong" people out there.

KalEf
30-03-2015, 03:54
I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who liked 6th/7th a lot. I thought it was my rose-tinted goggles, since I started WHFB with 6th when I was really young. But it seems it was simply a superior rules system.

This was a very popular thought!... but a lot of people just moved on to other things.