PDA

View Full Version : New Fantasy edition - missing some old rules.



Lord Inquisitor
04-01-2007, 22:45
I've (finally) got onto the bandwaggon with the latest version of the Fantasy rules.

I realise this has probably been discussed before, but if I resurrect an old thread I get decried as a necromancer, so here's a new one.

What do people think of the new rulesset? I was - for the most part - extremely impressed, and all of the old niggly rules glitches have been patched (such as Regeneration) and I love some of the new rules like the ones for buildings (which actually seem to work!). The magic dice allocation rule has made for quite an improvement in the magic phase - each wizard is now important.

However, a couple of things really stand out. No more protection for characters near units? I was hoping they'd get MORE protection (such as look out sir near units not only in units)! Why on earth has this been changed? I can't imagine ever sticking a character's nose outside a unit any more... which is a bit of a shame, really.

The other one that really stuck out was the lack of lapping round. While it was a fairly unpleasant rule to work out and cause all sorts of issues with regard to being charged, etc, it was there for a reason. Now chariots and spawn and some characters can whack into a unit and more or less avoid being killed because the unit can't bring the models to bear. I've already had a situation where a unit of elite troops were unable to deal with a few pesky wolves because they just couldn't move enough troops in.

Just outright odd that a unit with small frontage can expand to meet a large frontage unit, but the large-frontage unit can't use its numerical advantage against a smaller unit...

Mephistofeles
05-01-2007, 00:15
Well, I love the new rules, and I agree with you on the most parts, but not on some.

I love the new "Characters can be hit as long as they are not hiding" thingie, it's much more realistic and also makes the game a bit different, in a good way. No more solo mages running around just dodging everything that comes there way just because they happen to have friends nearby. Now those friends have to really be all around the mage to protect him, and I like that.


And lapping around didn't actually do anything, the smaller targets who cannot be hit by even a full rank usually lose on combat res. anyway...

Petey
05-01-2007, 06:02
If you look again, the rules now state that the players must put as many models into contact as possible, and so the old days of clipping charges is now over.
As to lapping around, i m ok with it gone, since now a unit can turn to face it's enemy. Really it was asinine before.
I like that characters can be shot, but i dislike that cannons can do it. Really i feel the cannon should never be able to snipe. I'd include rules on the cannon that it's normal attack cant be used to target single models with unit str 2 or less, and that characters always pass their look out sir rolls against it.

In all, i also really like the new addition. But if it were up to me, i ld do a radical revision. I would make all combat go in order of initiative, charge giving a bonus to CR not strike first, I'ld change all the weapons a bit, make same initiative models strike simultaneously, alter magic weapons so that they count as the weapon they are as well as having their magic, and finally alter what the army comp is after 2k points.

But even as it is, it's awesome.

Scythe
05-01-2007, 11:06
I don't agree with the protection characters should receive. I think it is a good change. Hunting down wizards was practically impossible with them dodging between units. Now you can nail them if they don't watch their steps.

However I do agree that it is kind of a loss lapping round is gone, even if it was only used occasionally. It was a good rule which balanced out unbreakable units and similar a bit. I also think the new 'immuune to psychology' is a step backward. When you are immuune, you are actually immuune to fear, panic and terror, but not to other psychology...:wtf:

Artemis
05-01-2007, 11:27
I like that characters can be shot, but i dislike that cannons can do it. Really i feel the cannon should never be able to snipe. I'd include rules on the cannon that it's normal attack cant be used to target single models with unit str 2 or less, and that characters always pass their look out sir rolls against it.

That would make any character with a unit strenght 2 or less immune to direct cannonfire, and if he got hit by accident many discussions would arise about whether the aiming was fairly done. Not to mention that a lot of guessing would be rather creative. I admit that it seems rather unrealistic, though. But for the prupose of game dynamics it seems best to leave the cannon rules as they are, in that respect.

intellectawe
05-01-2007, 16:23
Clipping still happens. It happens to me quite often. When you charge 8" and you make it exactly 7" to the corner of a unit, you clip. No way around it without house rules.

So saying clipping is over is a wrong statement. What you meant to say was cheating is over with clipping :)

Lord Inquisitor
05-01-2007, 23:17
I love the new "Characters can be hit as long as they are not hiding" thingie, it's much more realistic and also makes the game a bit different, in a good way.

I don't agree: how is it realistic that my opponent's bolt thrower can (with pinpoint accuracy) spear my poor necromancer between those massive blocks of undead? It strikes me as most unrealistic that he could be singled out at that range at all!

The battlefield is going to be strewn with stragglers and wounded pretty soon. Besides, being shot full of arrows before the battle has even started is pretty unheroic!


And lapping around didn't actually do anything, the smaller targets who cannot be hit by even a full rank usually lose on combat res. anyway...

It depends on the unit: if I hit your Chaos Warriors, I'd be best off doing it with as little frontage and as many ranks as possible. Extreme cases such as the Chaos Spawn or Daemonslayer: they are unbreakable, so the only way to win would be to kill them. If you've got lousy troops such as goblins, you could really do with bringing your numbers to bear - which is now impossible. No more swarming round a giant to bring it down! :(


If you look again, the rules now state that the players must put as many models into contact as possible, and so the old days of clipping charges is now over.
I did notice that change (thank you very much ;) ), and specifically the change from the old rule (bring as many of YOUR models into contact with the enemy as possible) to the new (bring as many of both sides' models into contact) prevents much of the old weasling.


As to lapping around, i m ok with it gone, since now a unit can turn to face it's enemy. Really it was asinine before.

Agreed! That was the first thing I looked for in this edition.


I don't agree with the protection characters should receive. I think it is a good change. Hunting down wizards was practically impossible with them dodging between units. Now you can nail them if they don't watch their steps.

Well, you could always charge them, wherever they hid - and most armies have units that can do this (fellbats, harpies, etc). Always seemed enough to me!


I also think the new 'immuune to psychology' is a step backward. When you are immuune, you are actually immuune to fear, panic and terror, but not to other psychology...:wtf:

I don't know... while I quite liked the idea that immune to psych was a two-edged sword (such as the dillema of not wanting to make stubborn troops immune), there are so very many "subject to frenzy/hatred/stupidity even if immune to psychology" exceptions in the Army books that can all be cut out now. It will make a lot of magic items more succinct.


Clipping still happens. It happens to me quite often. When you charge 8" and you make it exactly 7" to the corner of a unit, you clip. No way around it without house rules.

So saying clipping is over is a wrong statement. What you meant to say was cheating is over with clipping :)

You can still be beardy with clipping, but it is much harder.

Actually, something that I was thinking about: how about this for an idea? Suppose in every combat, EVERY model in the fighting rank were able to attack? This would represent the units smashing into one another... a trooper isn't going to stand in a straight line just because he's a foot or two away from the enemy - he's going to get stuck in! This would eliminate the evil clipping once and for all. There'd have to be a lot of though as to how it would work with multiple combats, but the 40K rules manage something similar (for example: attacks can only be allocated against those in base contact, but "supporting" troops not in b-t-b would be able to attack the nearest enemy fighting their flank).

szlachcic
05-01-2007, 23:34
Clipping still happens. It happens to me quite often. When you charge 8" and you make it exactly 7" to the corner of a unit, you clip. No way around it without house rules.

So saying clipping is over is a wrong statement. What you meant to say was cheating is over with clipping :)

Actually I got the impression that you would slide the unit over anyways to bring the most models into contact. I think this was addressed in the FAQ.
Ok, I found the quote from the FAQ. Technically you would have to agree with each other before a slide happens, but if I ever had an opponent say no then I probably wouldn't ever play that person again. Clipping only hurts the game since no one wants to see two guys slap each other while the rest of their regiments sit around. Here is the quote from the FAQ.


This may also happen during a charge, if the units are far apart, exactly at the maximum charge distance of the chargers (Fig. 1). This situation will make it impossible for the chargers to wheel, because any wheel would mean that they fail the charge. Therefore they will have to charge directly forward. Funnily enough, a very similar situation can occur when the units are too close and the charging unit cannot physically wheel enough to bring the maximum number of models in combat (Fig. 2).

In all these extreme situations, if you want to play literally by the rules, you have to live with the clipping and continue with the game.

However, you should also feel free to agree with your opponent upon any gentlemanly solution which could avoid clipping situations. The best solution is normally to slide sideways the chargers (or the unti that won the fight), in order to bring more models in to the fight.
This is not technically allowed by the letter of the rules, but if both players agree to do this, the game will benefit in realism and fun (you get to roll lots more dice!).

nathonicus
05-01-2007, 23:53
I like that characters can be shot, but i dislike that cannons can do it. Really i feel the cannon should never be able to snipe.

I read somewhere in GW releated article or something a defense for "Cannon Sniping" which said that there was precedent for it in history, as cannons often targeted small groups such as enemy artillery teams and command sections. If you imagine that a commander is actually probably never all by his lonesome, either, but attended by messengers, field officers, & etc., it may be more palatable.

I personally think it's ok, as in the ranges depicted in Warhammer, getting that close to an enemy cannon all on your lonesome would probably draw some unwanted attention from the crew.

I like the development game-wise as it's one step further away from the Herohammer days of old. (I alos like what it did to RatlingTeams! :skull: )

Lord Inquisitor
06-01-2007, 00:05
Actually I got the impression that you would slide the unit over anyways to bring the most models into contact. I think this was addressed in the FAQ.
Yeah, I know - I've done just that several times in the past. But wouldn't it be nice if the rules were written in such a way that you didn't need to resort to a "gentlemanly agreement" for a fun/realistic battle? :rolleyes: That sort of "fudging" can be fine, but it can equally cause problems in certain situations. Also, there are situations where clipping can simply not be avoided: last game I played, my huge, ranked unit charging in could only get one model in contact because the enemy unit was already engaged in the front (and, being in the front arc, I was not allowed to charge that tempting flank...)

Petey
06-01-2007, 01:05
@Nathonicus thank you, i am better with it (i m still not totally convinced) but it makes it much easier to swallow.

Each generation of the rules is better. so i have to disagree with scythe. The reason for the change to immune to psychology is so you could ignore all bad psych and still use good psych (like hatred)

one day, i m sure we ll even get halberds fixed. (i wait in silent prayer for that day to come soon)

Lord Inquisitor
06-01-2007, 01:29
What's wrong with halberds? (I wouldn't hold your breath, it's going to be a long time for a new edition, and halberds haven't changed a bit in the last few editions as I recall...)

Scythe
06-01-2007, 11:12
Well, you could always charge them, wherever they hid - and most armies have units that can do this (fellbats, harpies, etc). Always seemed enough to me!


Not if they were crammed between units. Remember, you have to keep your distance from units you are not charging. Personally, I found killing wizards reliably a big pain. Wizards always seemed to be the last models in an army which went down, not really fair if you ask me.


Each generation of the rules is better. so i have to disagree with scythe. The reason for the change to immune to psychology is so you could ignore all bad psych and still use good psych (like hatred)


And that makes sense in which way? Immune to psychology, except from some psychology? Warriors thinking, "hey, though I am not affected by psychology and emotions, I can better keep my hatred, since it gives me an advantage". Not all special rules are ment to be an advantage. You can't always have your cake and eat it.

Gazak Blacktoof
06-01-2007, 12:44
Immunity to psychology generally represents a lack of fear, not a lack of emotion. Dragons might not terrify you (idiot:p ) but that shouldn't preclude you having a particular racial hatred or general xenophobic tendencies. Well not until the dragon eats you:D .

Scythe
06-01-2007, 13:11
Hatred is a psychological readtion, as is, say, stubbornes. You would expect someone immune to psychology to be immune to these things, right? A better name for the current 'immune to psychology' rule would be 'fearless', it would cover the rule a lot better.

McGonigle
06-01-2007, 13:16
And that makes sense in which way? Immune to psychology, except from some psychology? Warriors thinking, "hey, though I am not affected by psychology and emotions, I can better keep my hatred, since it gives me an advantage". Not all special rules are ment to be an advantage. You can't always have your cake and eat it.

It's less having cake and eating it (You can now have stupid creatures immune to it) but rather allowing the rules to be more streamlined. (There are at least 6 "Even if normally immune to psychology" rules in the Hordes of chaos army book and the exceptions were begining to be more than the cases where the rule applied.

Gazak Blacktoof
06-01-2007, 13:16
Except that in a warhammer context fearless-ness could be confused with an immunity to "fear", not terror or panic.

Its just a name for a rule though, the change in its effect was to prevent the inclusion of lots of special rules as we had previously covering the mixing of ITP and hatred, stubborn etc. The alteration makes perfect sense to me as it allows a greater scope for variance in the rules without needless complexity re: exceptions to existing rules.

Scythe
06-01-2007, 13:29
That doesn't mean it makes sense though. Look at it this way: we have a great psychology section in the rulebook, with all kind of different psychology effects. Then we have a rule, which is called 'immune to psychology'. So, as a new player, what do you think this rule does? Nope, it doesn't. I can understand the reasons why they made the rule only affecting fear, terror and panic, but the name is just plain confusing.

Palatine Katinka
06-01-2007, 14:58
Immune to Psychology is a rule given to units that "are almost complete fearless" not devoid of all emotion. If it prevented ALL psychology rules, Frenzy would be a paradox. It makes you Immune to Psychology, which would cancel the Frenzy, so you would no longer be Immune to Psychology! Luckily, that is not the case. Another solution would have been to move all the psychologic effects not affected by Immune to Psychology to the Special Rules section but last time I heard some suggest that it didn't go down well. Don't know why, seemed sensible to me.

All in all, I'm happy with the new rules. A lot of the rules have been tidied and bizarre, obsolete manoeuvres removed. I like the Pursuit into a new combat rules but, sadly, I am yet to see my Cold One Knights achieve this!

Scythe
06-01-2007, 15:21
There has never been a paradox to begin with. Frenzied troops were always immune to all other psychology.

Petey
06-01-2007, 16:57
at this point, scythe, we re just arguing semantics. The reason they didn't change the name to fearless is because they've had immune to psychology, the special rule, for all 7 editions of the game so far. While there may be a better name for it, it's not likely to change. The current definition of the power is the most accurate following it's use since ed. 1.

FatOlaf
06-01-2007, 18:53
I like the development game-wise as it's one step further away from the Herohammer days of old. (I alos like what it did to RatlingTeams! :skull: )


Not a skaven General I guess? ;)

But on the whole I have to agree, 7th IMHO is streamlined, easier to learn and most importantly quicker to play. But still a long way off perfect, what ever that is?

eagletsi1
07-01-2007, 13:14
Let me chime in on it.

Lapping: I agree it needs to be put back in. I used it constantly and when a unit of swordmasters laps around you have a lot of deadly attacks.

with it gone I have a tougher time dealing with unbreakables and stubborn units. I understand why they did it though, because they want the new version to focus on charging and counter charging in the flanks which means mroe units and buying more models.

Characters not protected by units unless in units: I think this rule is great also, let's face it I almost never put my characters outside of units and I would say 98% of the people I play never did either. Besides that it helps weaken an overpowered skaven book, since their ratling guns can now be targeted and without a -1 for a single model. I think it is a test to see how players adapt to the rule. I hope they don't change it.

Thats my two cents.

eagletsi1

Athelassan
07-01-2007, 14:57
I'm inclined to agree about lapping round. Yes, it was one of the most complicated and poorly-understood bits in the rules. But it was in there for a reason, and it seems to have been unceremoniously chopped just to make the voluminous rulebook "more accessible".

On the cannon issue, I feel obliged to point out that if they can't snipe characters there's no point in taking them. They're all but useless against large units and small units tend to deploy in a way that means cannon can only hit one at a time. Monsters remain a viable target, but they're taken so infrequently that it wouldn't be worth taking a cannon just to combat a hypothetical one. If you don't want characters to die, stick them in a unit (I'm a fan of the new rule on this)- their chances of survival increase astronomically.

Ath

The Clairvoyant
07-01-2007, 16:43
the characters outside regiments thing i'm kind of in two minds about. The old rule of needing to be within 5" of unit to count as being associated with it was ridiculous but making characters snipeable (and not just cannons, i'm referring to those archers on the hill who decide to pick off your wizard cos its now an eligible target) is also rather unrealistic. We used to play with the "associatied with" bit as 2" rather than 5" which made it fairer and also far more realistic. However, having to stick your wizards in a regiment or spend some points on a ward save instead of some of the nasty arcane items helps tone things down a bit.

in general, it seems those dabblers in the arcane arts have gotten rather a sore deal with 7th Ed. Not only do they have to worry about the fact they can now be shot while standing behind your big unit of spearmen, they also cant use their wizard buddies as batteries and they have to contemplate a new miscast table. And all the while having to deal with no great improvements to their spells. Wizards have suddenly found it very difficult to justify their position in the final army list. (though i'm a VC player so they'll always get a place in my army - they just have to work harder and will be forced into finding new grave sites to plunder)

As for lapping around, we used it so rarely that its absence in 7th ed makes little difference.

I like the reduction in strength bonus for 2 handed weapons on horseback as it makes lances look like a viable option again and besides it can't be easy to get a big swing with a two handed weapon while your horse is galloping!

Scythe
07-01-2007, 17:47
I'm inclined to agree about lapping round. Yes, it was one of the most complicated and poorly-understood bits in the rules. But it was in there for a reason, and it seems to have been unceremoniously chopped just to make the voluminous rulebook "more accessible".

Yup, it was rather complicated, and not often usef. However, it was a nice balancing act for unbreakable and stubborn units (in lesser degree) to make them at least beatable. I can understand why the rule was scrapped, though I would have liked something to compensate for that. They did it with swarms, which now suffer wounds like undead. Why not apply that principle to all unbreakable units?


On the cannon issue, I feel obliged to point out that if they can't snipe characters there's no point in taking them. They're all but useless against large units and small units tend to deploy in a way that means cannon can only hit one at a time. Monsters remain a viable target, but they're taken so infrequently that it wouldn't be worth taking a cannon just to combat a hypothetical one. If you don't want characters to die, stick them in a unit (I'm a fan of the new rule on this)- their chances of survival increase astronomically.

Ath

Well, I don't entirely agree. Deploy your cannon on the far flanks, and watch you get those side shots against cavalry. Very deathly if done correctly. And it is not only monsters (which are not all that rare; besides the ridden monsters there are also things like giants, shaggoths, steam tanks, hydras and so on); it is also chariots, war machines, and other hard targets that work in small units.