PDA

View Full Version : I said I'd do it, so here goes nothing...



Nell2ThaIzzay
06-08-2006, 02:15
...I said during all my rants and rumblings against the 7th Edition changes that if it weren't as bad as I said it'd be, I'd come out and admit it.

So with that said, I played my first game under 7th Edition rules yesterday, and things didn't go too badly at all for me.

My biggest worry was the magic phase, and I'll admit, at least in this game, I hardly noticed a difference. It helped that my list alloted me 5 pool dice, so I was practically able to distribute as I saw fit anyways. And considering that I've never fielded, what they call, mage batteries (I usually end up casting with all my mages anyways, or at the least, my intent isn't to use lower level mages to fuel my general), there wasn't too much of a difference.

The 5-wide rank rule caught my friend off guard, as we didn't design our lists for 7th edition, he just said he wanted to try it out, so we went for it. He was running Lizardmen, and his core blocks were only 5 wide. It turned a tie combat, that could have held my Grave Guard up long enough for him to get a flank or rear charge, into an auto-break and my chasing his unit down.

The insane courage rule did annoy me, as in a combat that I dominated, he rolled snake eyes and held, which allowed him to end up getting a flank on my Grave Guard.

The cross fire rule did help solve a problem we had after a combat in which his unit broke, and both units I had engaged were to pursue. Neither rolled high enough to catch him down, and when trying to figure out where my guys were supposed to be, we realized that he fled through my 20 deep regiment of Grave Guard, so he was dead.

I do enjoy that the "sucked into combat" rule if within 1" of a combat has been removed, as the rules now specifically state you can only get into combat through a charge, and that if you're closer than 1" to an engaged unit, the unit not engaged is simply moved 1" away from the combat.

The miscast table didn't hurt me too much. On 2 miscasts with my general, I only took one wound. And being Vampire Counts, I was able to heal that wound the next turn. Luckily there wasn't anything I saw that ends the magic phase, so that's good.

The biggest change thus far that I dislike is that combats are dealt with individually. I felt it was better (and more realistic) when combats were all simultaniously. I.E. My opponent charges, destroys my unit, overruns into another unit, and now they get to attack the new unit in the same combat phase. I really don't like that change.

Overall, the new changes don't seem to be as bad as I anticipated. Although it also helps that my Lizardmen opponent was only running 1 mage, and had only 5 dispel dice. My opinion on the matter may change if I play someone with higher magic defense. But so far, my worries have been laid to rest a bit.

Luke
06-08-2006, 07:47
Cool. Glad it went ok for you. Personally I welcome the changes and am glad to see that it causes no dumb problems.

lorelorn
06-08-2006, 10:56
I do enjoy that the "sucked into combat" rule if within 1" of a combat has been removed, as the rules now specifically state you can only get into combat through a charge, and that if you're closer than 1" to an engaged unit, the unit not engaged is simply moved 1" away from the combat.

Whoa... they got rid of that rule about six months into 6th edition as it made games almost unplayable. It was obviously never tested. Have you been playing with this rule for the whole of sixth edition?

Nice to know that seventh plays smoothly though, thanks.

Venomizer
06-08-2006, 14:08
good to hear that 7th ed. plays smoothly enough - I welcome the vast majority of the changes and I'm encouraged to hear they aren't causing any stupid, niggling problems

Luke
06-08-2006, 15:04
I think the only people to suffer under 7th would be power gamers who "get off" on clipping and conga lines.

I welcome the changes.

Ravening Wh0re
06-08-2006, 16:38
he fled through my 20 deep regiment of Grave Guard, so he was dead.

Hang on, 20 deep? So that's around 100 Grave Guard? Wowie.

Glad you weren't put off with the new rules :)

Galonthar
06-08-2006, 21:07
good to hear its playable.. though I must confess we never fully use all rules literally... on house mainly for us..

ebolatheripe
07-08-2006, 06:54
Glad to hear it wasn't as bad as you thought it was going to be. And it is very big of you to admit it, tho as I said in a previous post, if 7th edition came out and everything you said was true, the mods would need to post a sticky saying "Nell2ThaIzzay was right.", for your clairvoyance :D .

Nell2ThaIzzay
07-08-2006, 07:08
Whoa... they got rid of that rule about six months into 6th edition as it made games almost unplayable. It was obviously never tested. Have you been playing with this rule for the whole of sixth edition?

Nice to know that seventh plays smoothly though, thanks.

I didn't know that rule was removed.

It's something that's only been coming up recently (when I started going back to Games Workshop) but all of the players down there play by that rule. Is there anywhere you can show me that I can use to show them that the rule was taken out, even in 6th? Because I despise that rule, almost as much as challenges.

Nell2ThaIzzay
07-08-2006, 07:08
Whoa... they got rid of that rule about six months into 6th edition as it made games almost unplayable. It was obviously never tested. Have you been playing with this rule for the whole of sixth edition?

Nice to know that seventh plays smoothly though, thanks.


Hang on, 20 deep? So that's around 100 Grave Guard? Wowie.

Glad you weren't put off with the new rules :)

lol

20 deep as in, 20 models in the regiment, not 20 ranks :)

Although 20 ranks worth of Grave Guard would be a pretty swell regiment :cool:

lorelorn
07-08-2006, 11:04
Do you have a copy of the 2004 Annual? It's in there, in the Warhammer FAQ section. It was also in the 2003 and 2002 Annuals, if you have those.

I'll have a look on the GW site, see if I can find anything. edit: It looks like they have removed all errata from the site. Nice one.

The full quote from the books is "The appendix for accidental charges on page 262 of the Warhammer rulebook has led to some dubious tactics and confusion and should therefore be ignored."

The whole page can basically be ripped out. And a good thing too.

Mephistofeles
07-08-2006, 11:51
So you mean that if my unit is charged and defeated, the overrunners now get to fight the ones they overrun into the same turn, and if they destroy/defeat them too, they get to continue smashing me all turn? That sucks :(

gjnoronh
07-08-2006, 15:57
Interesting I've never read that annual either - I've taken to always discussing that rule prior to games (as some folks play with it and some don't) but I failed to realize there was an annual update about it.

Clearly it's time for another edition however.

I'm glad it went well for you.

Nell2ThaIzzay
07-08-2006, 20:34
So you mean that if my unit is charged and defeated, the overrunners now get to fight the ones they overrun into the same turn, and if they destroy/defeat them too, they get to continue smashing me all turn? That sucks :(

If you charge, destroy the opponent, you can overrun into a new unit, and fight again in that same combat phase.

However, only 1 overrun is allowed per turn, so if you destroy that unit too, you're not going anywhere.

Latro
07-08-2006, 20:49
If you charge, destroy the opponent, you can overrun into a new unit, and fight again in that same combat phase.

However, only 1 overrun is allowed per turn, so if you destroy that unit too, you're not going anywhere.


... and it's a great rule!

I already tried it once, too bad for me we were still playing 6th edition rules (got a bit confused there) and things didn't go quite as planned. :(


:cool:

snurl
08-08-2006, 09:55
That almost sounds like the tomb kings bone giant unstoppable charge rule.

mageith
08-08-2006, 15:38
I do enjoy that the "sucked into combat" rule if within 1" of a combat has been removed, as the rules now specifically state you can only get into combat through a charge, and that if you're closer than 1" to an engaged unit, the unit not engaged is simply moved 1" away from the combat.

Clarification to others. There are two similar rules. One was removed, one was not.



The biggest change thus far that I dislike is that combats are dealt with individually. I felt it was better (and more realistic) when combats were all simultaniously. I.E. My opponent charges, destroys my unit, overruns into another unit, and now they get to attack the new unit in the same combat phase. I really don't like that change.

You might be happy to know that you probably didn't play it right then. The second combat only happens if these two things are true: 1) the unit overran into is ALREADY in combat and 2) that combat hasn't yet been fought that turn.

Three Headed Monkey
08-08-2006, 16:04
Added to that, the player whose turn it is decides the order that combats take place. So if you see that you can overrun a powerful unit into another combat, then you would try to resolve the combat with the unit you which to overrun in it first.

Plus, as you can pursue into another combat, the rule is only one overrun or pursuit a turn. So the unit that overran cannot pursue if it breaks the enemy. Units starting the phase in that combat can, though.

Trust me, it is much clearer in the rulebook; I'm not the most eloquent person in the world.

Nell2ThaIzzay
08-08-2006, 20:48
You might be happy to know that you probably didn't play it right then. The second combat only happens if these two things are true: 1) the unit overran into is ALREADY in combat and 2) that combat hasn't yet been fought that turn.

Oh I know that, we were playing it right.

I still don't like that change though.

samw
09-08-2006, 07:23
I think holding off until each of us has the rule book might be a good idea. There are lots of conflicting reports and interpretations. No surprise really, as the rules forum can show there are still heated disputes about this edition!

Nell2ThaIzzay
09-08-2006, 10:32
I think holding off until each of us has the rule book might be a good idea.

Holding off for what?

If you're talking about my opinion of 7th edition, I played my game at Games Workshop, with the actual 7th Edition rulebook... not playing based on rumors that we've heard, but the actual thing.

samw
09-08-2006, 12:33
Holding off for what?

If you're talking about my opinion of 7th edition, I played my game at Games Workshop, with the actual 7th Edition rulebook... not playing based on rumors that we've heard, but the actual thing.

I meant discussion of strategy and tactics aswell as whether this was a "good" or "bad" rules shift. Whilst it may not be the case for you, the majority of people on here have not seen the rule book. Many that have had a quick stolen glance. Hence the contrasting accounts. I was merely saying that those who
are going off rumour might want to wait until they have the book in their possession.

Nell2ThaIzzay
09-08-2006, 20:17
I meant discussion of strategy and tactics aswell as whether this was a "good" or "bad" rules shift. Whilst it may not be the case for you, the majority of people on here have not seen the rule book. Many that have had a quick stolen glance. Hence the contrasting accounts. I was merely saying that those who
are going off rumour might want to wait until they have the book in their possession.

Ah ha, alright.

Gotcha!
:cool: