PDA

View Full Version : Is the Slann facing it's last days?



Alltaken
10-03-2010, 17:57
I'm terribly afraid that current rumors, namely magic and 25% heroe cap means the slann we know now a day is facing it's last days.

What do you guys think? Is GW trying to punch us lizardmen in the nuts?

N810
10-03-2010, 18:04
seems that way if rumors are true... (for 2000pt games)
on the bright side rumors around here are never 100% true.

Ultimate Life Form
10-03-2010, 18:04
No, they're just kindly 'encouraging' you to play (or should I say buy minis for) 4000 points games.

Grey Mage
10-03-2010, 18:12
I think its likely to be simply an untrue rumor.

It screws over several armies, and invalidates a number of choices... many of their models would stop selling at any reasonable rate simply because no one could use them.

Im not worried about it at all.

Condottiere
10-03-2010, 18:15
Perhaps Slanns get exemptions.

25% might not be that concrete, perhaps if you have a single character that exceeds that, it might be allowed.

Grey Mage
10-03-2010, 18:20
Or perhaps, and far more likely, you simply cant spend more on your heroes than you do on your core choices. Heck, even Hero+Rare max = Core.

Edit: though I note, my Slann doesnt run over 500pts unless Im really tricking him out.... though I admit, hes usually right at 500.

Falkman
10-03-2010, 18:32
I think its likely to be simply an untrue rumor.

It screws over several armies, and invalidates a number of choices... many of their models would stop selling at any reasonable rate simply because no one could use them.
Totally agree with this, if the "max 25% characters" rumour is true it just simply invalidates so many lord builds and hero combinations. I really hope there's something that the rumour guys have missed.

Unuhexium
10-03-2010, 18:41
Here's what I think of rumours: kill them or confirm them, but don't feed them. 'Nuf said!

The SkaerKrow
10-03-2010, 18:50
I think its likely to be simply an untrue rumor.

It screws over several armies, and invalidates a number of choices... many of their models would stop selling at any reasonable rate simply because no one could use them.

Im not worried about it at all.Wait, what? Other than some Special Characters and the Chaos Lord on Dragon, what can't be taken at 2,000 points that can be taken now? Beyond that, nothing is invalidated, you're simply compelled to take one toy off of your miniatures shelf instead of all of them.

The only army that really "suffers" under the rumored change is Tomb Kings, and they're already bringing up the tail end of the army book cycle. Once they receive an update (which is coming within the next year), no one will be particularly chuffed by being restricted on their investment in characters.

The Slann isn't going anywhere, unless you'd rather have an Engine of the Gods or Oldblood on Carnosaur, and in that case, it's a choice that you've made.

Last days, psha! :rolleyes:

willowdark
10-03-2010, 18:53
It will be the last days of the EotG. You'll still see Slanns, but you'll never see a 400+ pt support character all alone on the field with no one to support, no matter how good BA is.

phoenixlaw
10-03-2010, 18:53
Nah, it'll be ok, if all the rumours of 8th are true I can see tournaments houseruling it, or people just carry on using 7th

shadowskale
10-03-2010, 18:57
Slann is doomed mwhaahaha.
but no really, I cant see GW being that stupid to make a rule that stops a good 40% of there modles from selling.

Stegadeth
10-03-2010, 19:10
It will be the last days of the EotG. You'll still see Slanns, but you'll never see a 400+ pt support character all alone on the field with no one to support, no matter how good BA is.

I think you are right. The funny thing is, this will not hurt sales of Stegadons if it plays out how I think it will. With more points left over not spent on hero choices and frankly, most lists I see from Lizardmen not needing any more core choices under the percentage guidelines, no Lizardmen Army should really need more anvil units. So I imagine we'll see more Stegadons since they can be taken as special and rare as well. What other Hammer units do we have, really? Cold One Cavalry (usually with a hero which might not fit under that limit anymore), Kroxigors (I don't even own any!) or we throw a Stegadon out there. Nice movement, impact hits, high toughness, a lot of wounds. Consider it a Lizardmen chariot if you will.

Grey Mage
10-03-2010, 19:14
Wait, what? Other than some Special Characters and the Chaos Lord on Dragon, what can't be taken at 2,000 points that can be taken now? Beyond that, nothing is invalidated, you're simply compelled to take one toy off of your miniatures shelf instead of all of them.

The only army that really "suffers" under the rumored change is Tomb Kings, and they're already bringing up the tail end of the army book cycle. Once they receive an update (which is coming within the next year), no one will be particularly chuffed by being restricted on their investment in characters.

The Slann isn't going anywhere, unless you'd rather have an Engine of the Gods or Oldblood on Carnosaur, and in that case, it's a choice that you've made.

Last days, psha! :rolleyes:

Kholek Suneater, Lord Mazdamundi, Arahan and Naestra, Maelkith, Lord Kroak, Krok-gar, Greasus Gold-tooth, Archaon, Galrauch, Princes on Stardragons, Archmages on dragons, the Fae Enchantress, Thorgrimm Grudgebearer, Thorek Ironbrow, Dreadlord on Dragon...

thats just off the top of my head the lord choices that cant be taken naked under 500pts. Almost all of these characters have their own models, and many of them have been iconic characters in the game for several editions *wether or not theyve had rules*. Whos going to take the time to buy, convert and paint a Mazdamundi if they cant play it at 2250, the larger of the "standard" games?

If you include mounts in there.... a Vampire with equipment, and a necromancer on a corpse cart is around 500pts.... and thats two hero level characters, and not nearly enough PD to keep a 2000pt undead army from falling apart at the seems.

Yet youll still have the ability to take 4 lvl 4 core choice wizards in Daemons of Chaos....

So really, wheres the balancing factor for us? Wheres the incentive- monetary or otherwise for GW?

No, this rumor is crack-brained.

BigbyWolf
10-03-2010, 19:17
Wait, what? Other than some Special Characters and the Chaos Lord on Dragon, what can't be taken at 2,000 points that can be taken now? Beyond that, nothing is invalidated, you're simply compelled to take one toy off of your miniatures shelf instead of all of them.


He might not mean that the one character takes all the points, but at least the majority, for example if it does come true my WoC will suffer. I play 2000pts usually, and take a Lord, Caddy and BSB, which wont fit into 500 points. Sure, I can play bigger games, and I don't have a problem with that (and just taking an Exalted over a lord is something I'd rather not do...I've spent ages with my lord, and don't fancy downgrading to his less popular little brother!), I just think it's a shame that GW may think that restricting characters will solve a lot of the problems in the game (if, indeed they do think that, and intend to bring the cap in).

Ultimate Life Form
10-03-2010, 19:23
Well we don't know if it's even a rumor. If I recall it correctly it went like this:

Avian:
I KNOW they will re-introduce percentages.

Someone Else:
Ah, I get what you mean. But since GW obviously think their customers are dumb as a stump, I doubt they will pull anything complicated, so 25% and 50% steps it is, that should (hopefully) be easy enough even for idiots to understand.

Avian:
Yes, and since a 50% limit on characters would be pretty much pointless, we should expect it to be 25%.

That is all there is to it. I still hope GW doesn't mess up that horribly...

Witchblade
10-03-2010, 19:37
Kholek Suneater, Lord Mazdamundi, Arahan and Naestra, Maelkith, Lord Kroak, Krok-gar, Greasus Gold-tooth, Archaon, Galrauch, Princes on Stardragons, Archmages on dragons, the Fae Enchantress, Thorgrimm Grudgebearer, Thorek Ironbrow, Dreadlord on Dragon...

Good riddance?

willowdark
10-03-2010, 19:38
Ya, when you put it that way it doesn't sound so bad. :)

Ultimate Life Form
10-03-2010, 19:41
In their wisdom, GW saw fit to introduce tons upon tons of new and overpowered Special Characters, only to make them totally unusable shortly thereafter. :o

Memnos
10-03-2010, 19:54
Kholek Suneater, Lord Mazdamundi, Arahan and Naestra, Maelkith, Lord Kroak, Krok-gar, Greasus Gold-tooth, Archaon, Galrauch, Princes on Stardragons, Archmages on dragons, the Fae Enchantress, Thorgrimm Grudgebearer, Thorek Ironbrow, Dreadlord on Dragon...



Noooooooooooo.....*deep breath* Ooooooooooooooo.....*deep breath* Oooooooo!


Wait... You can take a Dreadlord on a Dragon and still have 40 points to spend on equipment. Just a sec. I'm gonna check the High Elf book.

And you can field a Prince on a Moon Dragon, since the model's the same and that wouldn't invalidate your model at all. And you can take a Prince on Star Dragon on 2250.

And you can take Thorek on 2250.

And I have played Ogres for years and have never taken Greasus, nor have I ever seen anyone take that terrible, overcosted, useless character. A M4 Ogre?

No model is going to be invalidated. It means that Archaon won't show up to every battle where a village is being attacked.

ShadowKnight64
10-03-2010, 20:10
Well my question is, is it 25% of the pts values? Or would it perhaps be 25% of the choices? Meaning you'd need atleast 3 or 4 core choices to take a lord? Plus then more core choices if you wanted to include X% of special and rare choices? Or am I waay out to lunch on thinking it may not be based on core choices instead of points?

BigbyWolf
10-03-2010, 20:36
It means that Archaon won't show up to every battle where a village is being attacked.

Wait...you mean that Karl Franz doesn't actually show up to every skirmish that the Empire's involved in accompanied by two Steamtanks? :eek:

Madness! ;)

Lordsaradain
10-03-2010, 21:02
Kholek Suneater, Lord Mazdamundi, Arahan and Naestra, Maelkith, Lord Kroak, Krok-gar, Greasus Gold-tooth, Archaon, Galrauch, Princes on Stardragons, Archmages on dragons, the Fae Enchantress, Thorgrimm Grudgebearer, Thorek Ironbrow, Dreadlord on Dragon...


These dont belong in 2k games anyway.

More units and less characters is a good think. I makes warhammer more tactical and less herohammery. :)

Alltaken
10-03-2010, 21:03
however if a toad does not appear skinks priest will be very much able to manage the magicl threat a DE magician could bring. Yeah right.

Ok, so Slann's not got, EOTG however yes, probably no more Scar Vets also. I guess, Slann means nearly exclusively magic heavy army as it seems to be

Faust
10-03-2010, 21:11
I find it disheartening that people are exploding over the entire "rumor" floating around at the moment. Also it doesn't mean that GW is ruining your game/army. Rather its a different playstyle that they have changed.

A side note to this is: GW may release a stand in for these armies for the time being. Who knows, maybe the EoTG, dragons, the like will be moved to cost a rare choice as well; Thus leaving you readily available to allow Karl Franze and Archeon to fight over Mr. Rogers wheat fields....

Then again, I need to expand my force to 2250pts anyways...

-Faust

Malorian
10-03-2010, 21:13
I very rarely took the slann until 3K anyway ;)

Peregijn
10-03-2010, 21:13
i realy hope they dont do the %thing... you know how manny cheap mages goblins can take... 8. 8 mages... or shamans... +armie books overrule the main rule book, my armie book sais that i can take 4 chars in a 2000p game witch 1 may be a lord... nowhere it says that there is a max.
so or they give evry armie a new book ad the same time 8e comes out or they wont have this rule.

Stegadeth
10-03-2010, 21:28
I very rarely took the slann until 3K anyway ;)

I can believe that, Mal. Of course, you are a very different kind of gamer and one who has pretty good tactics. I still can't believe Itchy didn't mop the floor with Krazy Face. I'll be bummed about that a while... pardon the pun.

ewar
10-03-2010, 21:36
I find it disheartening that people are exploding over the entire "rumor" floating around at the moment. Also it doesn't mean that GW is ruining your game/army. Rather its a different playstyle that they have changed.

A side note to this is: GW may release a stand in for these armies for the time being. Who knows, maybe the EoTG, dragons, the like will be moved to cost a rare choice as well; Thus leaving you readily available to allow Karl Franze and Archeon to fight over Mr. Rogers wheat fields....

Then again, I need to expand my force to 2250pts anyways...

-Faust

I'm not one to pout over rules changes - it happens. However this will seriously screw up a lot of lists.

I take a slann, 1 or 2 priests and a scar vet in a normal list which is not at all overpowered and is very fluffy - why should this be nerfed??

For my bretonnians it's the same, though of course they're much cheaper - I would have to drop my very fun and not very poweful hippogryph however.

If this does come into play, how exactly will many armies deal with the profusion of crazily powerful monsters? Anyone fancy fighting a bloodthirster/hydra/abomination with their juicy rank and file troopers?

No?

Me neither.

I think 8th needs to introduce a few subtle changes but the mechanics of the game are fine. They just need to sort the ********** army books out.

NB as a footnote, I highly doubt this will make it in as it is too stupid to comprehend. Though I believe I might have said the same about killpoints in 5th ed 40k...

artisturn
10-03-2010, 21:37
What do you guys think? Is GW trying to punch us lizardmen in the nuts?

First off I am disturbed to find out the lizardmen have nuts, that is one detailed model :D

But all kidding aside it just means The Slann will be seen in higher point games.

I play VC and I have the same concerns as you regarding some of the rumored changes since my Lords end up in the 480 to 500 point range as well.

I am now choosing to see the bright side of these changes bigger blocks of infantry,less super characters on the battlefield in small games.

And what is the point of stressing over something that is supposed to be fun, plus if I have to bring less heroes then some of my opponents will be bringing less as well.

Plus I have spent so much on this hobby that I can never stop playing. :evilgrin:

Grey Mage
10-03-2010, 21:41
Well we don't know if it's even a rumor. If I recall it correctly it went like this:

Avian:
I KNOW they will re-introduce percentages.

Someone Else:
Ah, I get what you mean. But since GW obviously think their customers are dumb as a stump, I doubt they will pull anything complicated, so 25% and 50% steps it is, that should (hopefully) be easy enough even for idiots to understand.

Avian:
Yes, and since a 50% limit on characters would be pretty much pointless, we should expect it to be 25%.

That is all there is to it. I still hope GW doesn't mess up that horribly...

This does not suprise me. Nor does it inspire my confidence in the validity of this rumor.

Alltaken
10-03-2010, 22:07
I very rarely took the slann until 3K anyway ;)

True you are indeed a different tactitian.

I do believe LM will be hit in a negative way, in this case it won't expand tactical options for us. I know Slann + 1 eotg is hugely common (slann +2eotg :cheese: is something I won't take into account) but it's a pretty tactical list. Yes it makes us a very elite build army, however we still have the option to run less hero focused armies.
Now we're focused uber light heroes lists, and if you want to go heavy magic lists it's a slann. God forbid someone tries to make a skink priest magic heavy army with such a great lore as heavens (not bad really lore, but not realliable).

Slann's are hugely costed, you can say that fluffwise they shouldn't show up every little battle, but hey that's why it's been changed to it's current incarnation. Very good, very relliable, good price balance, but you still have to play your army right, it doesn't win games on it's own.

And to those guys who say: Go for 3k! At 3k I can pull a 2k effective heroe and your still missing certain crucial heroes. Heores in LM are not broken or game winners. I do belive Carnos should go 3k up, not so fitted for 2k really, but hey that's me. But they are relliable to certian functions we need. Like dealing with big things, regen things, duels, etc.

decker_cky
10-03-2010, 22:14
Character combinations are going...aside from special characters, most every character can be used in 2000 or 2250, just it creates a bigger trade off. 1000 pts of characters in 2000 pts is silly. Does every high elf dragon really have to be a star dragon? Take a sun or a moon dragon instead and you can still have a dragon. Or...unthinkably, take a griffon instead!

outbreak
10-03-2010, 23:12
everyone is forgetting that along with the 25% rumour people have been saying GW are pushing 3-4k as a standard game size.

Stegadeth
10-03-2010, 23:14
everyone is forgetting that along with the 25% rumour people have been saying GW are pushing 3-4k as a standard game size.

I don't think anyone is forgetting that. I think people don't want to be forced into buying more models just to field the ones they already have and can use. :p

willowdark
10-03-2010, 23:14
But a Cap on characters will mean that 3K games will be bigger, more cumbersome and less practical to play in an evening.

I have enough trouble finding people to play 3K games as it is, without a cap meaning the armies will be so much bigger by default.

Schmapdi
10-03-2010, 23:16
Would it really be that hard to set it up so that it's tailored to individual armies?

So forces like Lizardmen, Ogres, Vampires, etc would maybe have a 35% cap instead? Or like Orcs and Goblins would have a 25% cap but wimpy things like goblin bosses only get counted at half cost? etc etc

theunwantedbeing
10-03-2010, 23:19
Why would a maximum of 25% on character's invalidate the slann?
He's 275pts, so unless your average game size is less than 1.1k you can still take a slann even if the 25% limit on character's rumour proves to be true.

25% of 2k is 500pts.
275 is less than 500pts.

Or is saying such things not really in the spirit of this thread?

Urgat
10-03-2010, 23:19
I'm terribly afraid that current rumors, namely magic and 25% heroe cap means the slann we know now a day is facing it's last days.

What do you guys think? Is GW trying to punch us lizardmen in the nuts?

Let's see... 25% of, say, 2000 points, 500 points. A slaan costs... Heh, barely more than half of that. I'd say you can still field a slaan, give it a couple upgrades, and even field one hero or two with them. If you mean goodbye fully kitted slaan plus fully kited EotG plus whatever plus whatever. yep, goodbye. And, well... cool.
The following sentence is not directed at LM players in particular:
the 25% limit forces players to make choices. That's awesome. I'm totally sold to the 25% limit, and no, that has nothing to do with me being able to spam gob heroes, i'm also all for another kind of limit to avoid cheap character spam if they prove to unbalance the game.

outbreak
10-03-2010, 23:37
They have also said their streamlining things so the game is quicker which may make 3k games easier to play. I agree about having to buy more models though i would be very annoyed at this, i don't mind the focus shifting to a higher point value but making it hard to play smaller games with your models is stupid.

Play skaven my seer on bell comes to 500pts so i guess i can't use him, verminlord is 500pts so he's gone. My tomb kings army is screwed. I thnk they'd be better off just setting the amount of points you have to spend on core but leaving the rest for specials/rares/characters as you see fit.

Stegadeth
10-03-2010, 23:43
Why would a maximum of 25% on character's invalidate the slann?
He's 275pts, so unless your average game size is less than 1.1k you can still take a slann even if the 25% limit on character's rumour proves to be true.

25% of 2k is 500pts.
275 is less than 500pts.

Or is saying such things not really in the spirit of this thread?

275 points is the basic, stripped down Slann. Most Slann Mage Priests I see in lists have at least two Disciplines of the Ancients and many use three disciplines, which adds 100 points. After that many people put some magic items on them. And, since he is the highest Leadership character a Lizardmen player can take he is often made general, so some of those protections from disciplines and magic items are quite necessary. Add to that he can be a Battle Standard Bearer and take a magic banner, so many players often equip him thusly.

I wouldn't say it's not in the spirit of the thread. I might say it's not in the spirit of how most people choose to play their Slann Mage Priest. Or, if you want, I might say it's a bit naive, or if you know better, disingenuous.

shadowskale
10-03-2010, 23:45
Kholek Suneater, Lord Mazdamundi, Arahan and Naestra, Maelkith, Lord Kroak, Krok-gar, Greasus Gold-tooth, Archaon, Galrauch, Princes on Stardragons, Archmages on dragons, the Fae Enchantress, Thorgrimm Grudgebearer, Thorek Ironbrow, Dreadlord on Dragon...

thats just off the top of my head the lord choices that cant be taken naked under 500pts.

And not one of them is any good...:shifty:

decker_cky
10-03-2010, 23:54
So you can't take the most powered up slann without sacrificing the ability to take other characters? Interesting.

Honestly....look at just how good a slann is for it's points, whether you dress it up to 400 pts or keep it down at 275...or maybe 50 pts on that. As a high toughness character with a ward save, he actually isn't that much in need of having a ton of extra points thrown on him. And come on...you point out leadership and BSB as a negative point? Give him temple guard if you want protection (not from character allowance!).

See what you want to fit in your list, then judge from there what you can afford on characters. A slann costing somewhere around 275-350 pts is great, and allows for a support character in 2000 pt games. Character selections are going to change to a huge degree for everyone. Those who spent 1000 pts on characters are going to need lots more units.

BTW, the bigger standard game thing is a strange concept. GW is offering less and less support and putting on less and less events. That means the general gaming and general tournament size will be determined by the tournament organizers and players...much like they do now. GW may hope people will play bigger games, but whether that happens is up to the players.

Stegadeth
11-03-2010, 00:08
So you can't take the most powered up slann without sacrificing the ability to take other characters? Interesting.

Honestly....look at just how good a slann is for it's points, whether you dress it up to 400 pts or keep it down at 275...or maybe 50 pts on that. As a high toughness character with a ward save, he actually isn't that much in need of having a ton of extra points thrown on him. And come on...you point out leadership and BSB as a negative point? Give him temple guard if you want protection (not from character allowance!).

See what you want to fit in your list, then judge from there what you can afford on characters. A slann costing somewhere around 275-350 pts is great, and allows for a support character in 2000 pt games. Character selections are going to change to a huge degree for everyone. Those who spent 1000 pts on characters are going to need lots more units.

BTW, the bigger standard game thing is a strange concept. GW is offering less and less support and putting on less and less events. That means the general gaming and general tournament size will be determined by the tournament organizers and players...much like they do now. GW may hope people will play bigger games, but whether that happens is up to the players.

I'll assume you were talking to me? In that case, I wasn't saying BSB and high leadership are a negative. I was saying that as a general, you want him well protected. As the BSB you also want him well protected and it costs points, which adds to his cost, to make him BSB. Putting a Slann in a Temple Guard bunker is, of course, an option, but an option that costs Special points and as a unit for their points cost, they are not really worth their cost when compared side by side with Spear Saurus blocks. Persoanlly, if they change to a 25% cap I'd love to see TG become a core choice when fielding a Slann.

A Slann/TG bunker is already a huge point sink, the value of which, without support characters, is arguably not worth it. That is what the OP was asking about. My personal opinion was expressed earlier in regards to that. I think the Slann will be alive and well based on the percentage rumors alone. Magic changes, however, might lead me to believe otherwise. I also believe we might find more people trying to use the Solo Slann with various disciplines that make him cause terror, regenerate, have MR, or make him ethereal.

CraftworldsRus
11-03-2010, 00:22
And not one of them is any good...:shifty:

Really? Thorek isn't any good? Elves on Dragons aren't any good? I wish I had your opponents. For me, Thorek tends to be a bloody nightmare.

enygma7
11-03-2010, 00:31
When discussing rumours I think too many people consider them only in the context of the current game and don't recognise that the change is part of a whole new edition - the entire metagame will change. To understand the affects of a restriction on characters you have to examin the changes as a whole (something which isn't possible at this stage). But some of the other changes rumoured are:
Basic infantry being a much more key part of the game
A complete re-working of the magic system.

Consider the relative power of warrior characters in a metagame with far more core infantry. Also consider that the new magic system will be built with any character restriction in mind. Wizards are expensive, especially lords, so its likely an army will need a lot fewer wizards under new rules for a similar effect. I think it's also fair to assume a new magic system will make vampire counts perfectly workable under the restrictions - they are a recent book. They are also seen as a very powerful book, so maybe the new magic system will be used to tone them down a bit (e.g. introduction of minor miscasts for single dice spells).

So will slann be unusable in 2000pt games? I doubt it. You probably won't be able to take a slann AND several support casters and a battle standard bearer, but you also probably won't need to. Besides, the point of restrictions is that your, well, restricted. You'll have to decide, do you want a slann OR some decent warrior characters to support your units.

In any case, I wouldn't get too hung up on the specifics of the rumour, its too uncertain at the moment. I'd just read into it a general intention that characters will be much more restricted under 8th ed and the game will be rebalanced towards rank and file.

shadowskale
11-03-2010, 00:33
Really? Thorek isn't any good? Elves on Dragons aren't any good? I wish I had your opponents. For me, Thorek tends to be a bloody nightmare.

Once you know how to deal with "elves on dragons" there not a problem to deal with. as for "Thorek" I have never played one, but if you wish i'll change my statment.

All but 1 of those are useless :shifty:

ChaosVC
11-03-2010, 02:05
If the rumour is true, the the rule book writer is ******** *****.
I will just make a youtube video with alot of swearing and screamning when this happen, provided I really have that kind of time.

Tactical Retreat!
11-03-2010, 03:59
This is the best rules change GW could ever do.

I'm sick and tired of herohammer.

For all of you people who say that you will be screwed cause they can't take their cookie cutter character combo anymore, remember that that goes for ALL armies. Your opponents will have to adjust their lists too.

Seriously, awesome if this turns out to be true!

The Red Scourge
11-03-2010, 06:18
For all of you people who say that you will be screwed cause they can't take their cookie cutter character combo anymore, remember that that goes for ALL armies. Your opponents will have to adjust their lists too.

And anyone wanting the über characters of doom, can just play 10K battles :)

sulla
11-03-2010, 06:23
This is the best rules change GW could ever do.

I'm sick and tired of herohammer.

For all of you people who say that you will be screwed cause they can't take their cookie cutter character combo anymore, remember that that goes for ALL armies. Your opponents will have to adjust their lists too.

Seriously, awesome if this turns out to be true!It's only awesome if the other guy doesn't get awesome magic with his 25% (WoC magic or VC magic). If they do that, and you have to keep bringing 2 scroll caddies in your 500pts, it will be the opposite of awesome as you try to fit an interesting character into your remaining 200pts or less...

As a change on it's own, it's a poor idea. If it is true, hopefully it will be part of a raft of changes that will also tone down magic heavy armies.

Djekar
11-03-2010, 06:34
Wait, WoC magic is awesome? I didn't get the memo. I mean, I like the lores, but I don't think they are "awesome".

It becomes very nasty when you take MoTzeentch on a Daemon Prince and spam Gateway, but that build is more expensive than the Slaan that people are already sounding the death knell for.

I have faith that the absolute need for a scroll caddy will dissipate in 8th, partially because of these restrictions.

Condottiere
11-03-2010, 09:32
It depends on the efficiency of Magic defense versus offense.

ChaosVC
11-03-2010, 09:43
Wait, WoC magic is awesome? I didn't get the memo. I mean, I like the lores, but I don't think they are "awesome".

It becomes very nasty when you take MoTzeentch on a Daemon Prince and spam Gateway, but that build is more expensive than the Slaan that people are already sounding the death knell for.

I have faith that the absolute need for a scroll caddy will dissipate in 8th, partially because of these restrictions.

Well Chaos magic may not be "Win button awesome!!!", but its still powerful and you really don't need a deamon prince for the gate way delivery system.
I can have 10 powerdice with only a lvl 4 and a lvl2 if I want to play with some magic support and that is already quite awesome for me tbh.

gauly_13
11-03-2010, 09:55
eh, I've been out of warhammer for years (to the point where i dont even have any old models anymore), and even I'm looking forward to not having to face 1000pts of character doom in a 2000pt game. Like has already been said, this restriction will force you to make choices, not have your cake an eat it too!

Bladelord
11-03-2010, 10:54
Slanns are awesome even without any extra equipments/BSB/Masteries.-

theunwantedbeing
11-03-2010, 14:25
I wouldn't say it's not in the spirit of the thread. I might say it's not in the spirit of how most people choose to play their Slann Mage Priest. Or, if you want, I might say it's a bit naive, or if you know better, disingenuous.

Oh right.
Lizardmen players = the same mindset of Vampire counts players.
Gotcha.

Which is that you have to fully upgrade the general.
A funny way of thinking if you ask me.

The most expensive slann is 600pts.
But drop his banner and a discipline and he is 500pts, neither of which are actually nessecary and now he fits into 2k.

Hardly screwing you over and stopping you having the slann.
Stopping you having him backed by 2 engines of the gods on the other hand.....yeah, you can't do that :P

Avian
11-03-2010, 14:33
If any Lizardmen players are considering throwing their Slann in the trash, send it to me instead. I've always wanted to paint that model. :)

Finnigan2004
11-03-2010, 15:14
The slann isn't facing it's last days. First of all, whether percentages are coming back or not, 25% is a made up number. It's wishlisting by players who want more troops in the game.

Someone said, "Percentages are coming back."

Someone else said, "It must be 25% because people couldn't do the math for 33% and 40-50% won't make any difference (other than curbing the absolute worst depradations).

Is it possible that GW will cock things up by putting this in a main rules book? Of course. Is it likely? No. My theory is that these rumours are simply Avian's way of trying to get people to give him their models for free ;). Kidding, my friend, only kidding (sort of).

Why is this rumour unlikely in it's current form? Great question. There are several reasons that it's not likely to be true, and one reason why it just might be.

First off, the major group of people who want this rumour to be true are those of us that have played for a long time. By and large, we have come to realize that balancing a game that includes epic heroes is very tough. The problem with playing to the veterans choir though is that we are only a very small portion of the people buying from GW. The target market is teens who like big monsters and epic heroes (as do a not insignificant minority of us).

Games Workshop allowed people to put massive numbers of dinosaurs into their armies because the sell. GW has never made any bones about the fact that they make rules to sell models, and not the other way around. Likewise they put a $100.00 price tag on Azhag and $50.00 on Gorbad because people will pay for cool hero models. Putting such a low cap on character models makes little sense from a marketing standpoint.

Wait though, they want to up the size of games, so you can still buy lots of cool character models. Well, again from a marketing perspective, this makes little sense. Games Workshop no longer runs many tournaments here in North America, so enforcing higher points values is tough to do.

The counterargument here is that upping the points values and lowering the amount made up by characters makes it look like they will sell more troops on the face of things. Hopefully someone in their marketing department will realize though that there is an upper limit to the amount of models that people will be willing to invest in when starting out in the game. When I travel to the coast, half of my pick up games end up being against new players who run a warriors of chaos army. Why? Because they can pick up the new army on the cheap and have it on the table top in a relatively short period of time.

The defenders of the rumour will say, "But with greater balance there will be more people who stay in the game. It will work out better for business in the long run."

Maybe. However, this will not create better balance. It will change the balance, but it will not improve. People will not suddenly run out and buy underpowered core infantry. If they buy anything at all, they will buy chaos knights, abominations, hydras, scores of dark rider to fill core slots, etc, etc.. The way to make people take more core is not to curtail heroes severely, it's by making them not suck.

Games Workshop tried this experiment once before in 40k, when they put out their Dark Angels codex. It failed. Put a Dark Angels codex beside a Space Wolves codex or a Blood Angels codex. I'm guessing that someone in the studio will remember this and tell the rest that those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Of course, I'm not sure if anyone there reads Santayana... :eyebrows:.

Preacher
11-03-2010, 15:18
I'm rather new to Lizards, so please excuse me.

But I don't think the Slann is gone. He can still be taken at 2k and most are playing 2250. At that level you've got 562 pts of characters to play with. A Slann easily fits into that, with a decent build you'd probably have points for another "light" character.

The Slann plus engine will be gone, no doubt. Choosing between the two will be pretty obvious, you take the Slann. So I would think its the Engine thats facing its last days, not the Slann.

From what I understand the 25% is just a "round" number. No one has confirmed this, it could wind up at 35% or something else. We don't know yet. So I don't think the sky is falling just yet.

Once the metagame changes, a tooled Slann will still be quite effective against the other capped armies(well, I think it would...again new to Lizzies).

Bit of a shame though, I just bought an EOTG and was hoping to use it with a Slann.

Oh well, the times they are a changing and we will change with them.

Edit..the post above mine was posted while I was typing...

Jack of Blades
11-03-2010, 15:29
Meh. I think they should just make you get either equal to or ~75% of what you have in core for character points, not just flat out restrict it. That just nerfs things without any reward, taking much core can be rewarded with opening up character points. That way if you wanted 1k characters in 2.25k, you'd have to take either 1250 or 1000 points of core first which would be unfeasible but still perfectly doable if you want to, unlike the 25% limit which just restricts your choices without any flexibility.

But basically, I for one would welcome an edition where you can't fill the character slots to your heart's content. Anyway the sky isn't crashing down upon us until we know what's in that book :p

Stegadeth
11-03-2010, 15:30
Oh right.
Lizardmen players = the same mindset of Vampire counts players.
Gotcha.

Which is that you have to fully upgrade the general.
A funny way of thinking if you ask me.

The most expensive slann is 600pts.
But drop his banner and a discipline and he is 500pts, neither of which are actually nessecary and now he fits into 2k.

Hardly screwing you over and stopping you having the slann.
Stopping you having him backed by 2 engines of the gods on the other hand.....yeah, you can't do that :P

I agree with you. Then again, I never backed a Slann with two engines. Of course, if the change happens you can't even back him with one, or really, with another support character, unless he is stripped down quite a bit. Also, I don't see wanting a well tooled Slann as a bad thing. You do pay the points for that investment, after all. The disciplines are hardly game breaking. Plus, as he is your Army's general, of course you want to be able to keep him alive (well at above half wounds anyway). It's not wrong to want to keep your general viable.

Nor is it wrong for someone to play HeroHammer if that is what they prefer. It's not how I enjoy the game most, but my most frequent opponent freely admits to liking to play that way. And obviously that cuts both ways. I am not wrong since I prefer a different style of play. When I want to play with fewer characters all I have to do is tell him and he'll make a different list. So far I have only lost to him once anyway when he brought his Chaos Lord on Chaos Dragon and I didn't take a heavy magic list.

All of that said, I really don't see 25% working well. It's the rumor I believe second least, after wrapping around in combat. ;)

And again, all that said, even if 25% ends up being the right number, it won't stop Slann from being taken. If magic is made much less effective than it is now, that might kill the Slann in combination with a 25% cap, but not 25% caps on characters by itself.

Urgat
11-03-2010, 15:36
If any Lizardmen players are considering throwing their Slann in the trash, send it to me instead. I've always wanted to paint that model. :)

Lol, stop making rounds in the rumour topics to try and get cheap models :p


First off, the major group of people who want this rumour to be true are those of us that have played for a long time. By and large, we have come to realize that balancing a game that includes epic heroes is very tough.

This sounds both true and amusing. Because we're supposed to be the one who hated the % deal back then :p

But I'm telling you, if we were back to that time, things would be pretty different (I believe I got nearly enough goblin characters to form a RnF unit with full static CR out of them now if that was allowed... who wants 50% characters back? :p).

Alltaken
11-03-2010, 16:35
Slann 2 disp, 1 magic item, BSB Warbanner comes about 400 and something pts. That's pretty pimped, but hey BSB, warbanner. I really think when investing in the slann you have to come up to a pretty realliable general.

This is my build at least. After this I can't take anything else, for what? For 6PD +1 each roll, Hey a hell load of cheap wizard characters can definetly ruin my day. So what? I'm paying close to all my points for a bunkered mage that now won't be of more precise use than a pimped BSB with a huge anvil unit? Just feels a little poorer. I feel hit, 35% would make my day. I really like the CAP change, though I don't like it as much on LM, Ogres and TK really, I think VC can handle, but then again I don't know them as much.

Bac5665
11-03-2010, 16:40
If the rumors about magic defense are true, 1 slann will be plenty for an army, and I'll happily just run one slann. I don't know that I need anything else. Saurus will be unstoppable, and I'll just go ahead and run 3 or 4 units of them. And I'll win huge.

N810
11-03-2010, 16:41
For around the same 25% you could take 5 skink priest on foot for 10 power dice...
(If I am rembering the points right)

Stegadeth
11-03-2010, 16:58
For around the same 25% you could take 5 skink priest on foot for 10 power dice...
(If I am rembering the points right)

Do you really want to invest that much in Lore of Heavens though?

Stegadeth
11-03-2010, 17:00
If the rumors about magic defense are true, 1 slann will be plenty for an army, and I'll happily just run one slann. I don't know that I need anything else. Saurus will be unstoppable, and I'll just go ahead and run 3 or 4 units of them. And I'll win huge.

Don't forget your Skink Skirmishers. Shooting looks to only get better based on some rumors already as well. I feel dreadful for Cavalry armies if these rumors pan out.

Urgat
11-03-2010, 17:06
Did cavalry armies felt dreadful for infantry armies for the past 10 years? If they bitch and don't want to buy new models, who care? They've had the same army since the begining of 6th ed and weren't likely to buy anything either way. I find all this very amusing indeed. I think it's going in my sig soon, that all the crap thrown around by the current rumours amuses me :p

Grey Mage
11-03-2010, 17:09
Should that really be an issue? Balancing a game doesnt meaing screwing over the strong parts just because they were strong, thats not balancing... thats just creating a new inbalance.

Stegadeth
11-03-2010, 17:51
Did cavalry armies felt dreadful for infantry armies for the past 10 years? If they bitch and don't want to buy new models, who care? They've had the same army since the begining of 6th ed and weren't likely to buy anything either way. I find all this very amusing indeed. I think it's going in my sig soon, that all the crap thrown around by the current rumours amuses me :p

I don't know if they felt dreadful or not. I prefer to get the game as balanced as possible, not screw over Army X because they were on top for Nth edition. That's not balance. It's selfishness. I'd really prefer it if GW would manage to balance the Army Books too. Most of the problems 7th edition has is not because of the BRB. It's because of Army Book: Daemons of Chaos, Army Book: Vampire Counts and Army Book: Dark Elves and kind of started with Army Book: High Elves and the power creep that ASF began.

And, since I like to be on topic, as I have said, i don't think this will be the death of the Slann Mage-Priest, but what about Oldblood on Carnosaur builds? Of course, if magic is toned down too much the the Oldblood on Carnosaur might become the preferred build, who knows? That's the trouble with rumors.

TheDarkDuke
12-03-2010, 04:55
Wait, what? Other than some Special Characters and the Chaos Lord on Dragon, what can't be taken at 2,000 points that can be taken now? Beyond that, nothing is invalidated, you're simply compelled to take one toy off of your miniatures shelf instead of all of them.

The only army that really "suffers" under the rumored change is Tomb Kings, and they're already bringing up the tail end of the army book cycle. Once they receive an update (which is coming within the next year), no one will be particularly chuffed by being restricted on their investment in characters.

The Slann isn't going anywhere, unless you'd rather have an Engine of the Gods or Oldblood on Carnosaur, and in that case, it's a choice that you've made.

Last days, psha! :rolleyes:

Skaven Clan Pestilence. You either get to take core monks with not a single furnace, or a furnace but no core monks. Heck I can't recall the cost but Im not sure if you can field a Grey Seer on Bell at 2000 points.

Any current Ogre list. Sounds like the early rumours on Ogres won't much change this fact.

Vampires suffer an interesting set up. Yes less vampires but you force them to go less combat oriented and more caster as general keeps army alive... doesn't help. Will make more people to start maxing those vampire rares.... again not much of a help.

Tomb Kings just went from subpar to terrible.

Those are some large issues that come to mind off the top of my head. Also with anything to the current psychology rules I would argue a cap on characters based on a % would more harshly affect the "weaker" armies as the "stronger" armies have a lot of benefits of fear, or tests caused by units, reducing other armies ability to raise and maintain leadership hurts a lot.

Total sales wise I guess it makes sense for GW, make more money on an extra box or two of something else over say a conversion or blister hero, while promoting the "large creature" eats up points now instead of heroes. However they certainly turn off a lot of people and cause a lot of issues with current army books. Almost a catch 22. I personally with my armies tend to field about 30-40% points on characters. I play High Elves, Ogres and Skaven. Planned to start a Vampire army mainly for some conversion ideas I like.

artisturn
12-03-2010, 05:36
Vampires suffer an interesting set up. Yes less vampires but you force them to go less combat oriented and more caster as general keeps army alive... doesn't help. Will make more people to start maxing those vampire rares.... again not much of a help.



That is the irony of it, One less Vampire but now all the remaining ones are maxed out for magic and forced into a bunker instead of being on the front lines where they are needed.

Since my troops cannot march unless they are 12 inches from my general or 6 inches from a vampire and with the cap I will be bringing less vampire heroes, so I will need to bring more rares than I would usually bring just so I can march.

That is my only issue with the proposed character cap that it directly affects my army's ability to march.

Urgat
12-03-2010, 08:32
I don't know if they felt dreadful or not. I prefer to get the game as balanced as possible, not screw over Army X because they were on top for Nth edition. That's not balance. It's selfishness.

Yeah, you're right. But you're assuming that by being nerfed they're screwed all over and up and down and back (Grey Mage's post illustrate the thought well...). The truth is, you don't know. For all we know, cavalry are going to get impact hits and "they run fast so are hard to hit" ward saves, or they're going to spit fireballs out of their asses, and will keep dominating the battlefield.

I can see Khorne Hounds shooting fireballs out of their asses.

You keep saying that armybooks are the issue? Yeah, of course they're the issue, everybody knows that, nobody has ever contested it. But if there's a way to more or less fix everything by changing the BRB, it's obvious this is going to be the prefered method, because it'll apply right away, with one book. I know you certainly want all the armybooks revised, heck, I want mine revised too. But let's be honest, how long has 7th ed been out? The full armybook cycle hasn't even been completed yet! You're not getting your armybook balancing cycle ended before 1015 at least, going this way.
I vote for new BRB rules if they even things out.

There's also, of course, one factor: I like things to change, I like novelty. People throw a fit and all because things are going to change... Well I'm happy with change, it's boring when it's always the same and, at least, for a while, people are going to work on finding loopholes before starting to exploit the rules. besides, those changes are really nothing if you compare that 8th ed (what the rumours told us about it, at least) to how the first editions of WFB were... Imagine if they were to decide to lose a couple stats again!


Skaven Clan Pestilence. You either get to take core monks with not a single furnace, or a furnace but no core monks. Heck I can't recall the cost but Im not sure if you can field a Grey Seer on Bell at 2000 points.

Any current Ogre list. Sounds like the early rumours on Ogres won't much change this fact.

Vampires suffer an interesting set up. Yes less vampires but you force them to go less combat oriented and more caster as general keeps army alive... doesn't help. Will make more people to start maxing those vampire rares.... again not much of a help.

Tomb Kings just went from subpar to terrible.

TK and OK are the next armybooks to come, within the year or next year. OK have always had trouble with their characters anyway. Skavens, I don't know, but they're supposed to have been written with 8th in mind right? I think people are worrying for nothing, I can't see GW stopping skavens from using bells at 2000. Either the 25% is wrong, either we're missing something (like mounts not in the 25% or something)

Condottiere
12-03-2010, 08:50
Champions seems to be the loop hole in the character cap, or character upgrades within a unit, like the Assassin; the errata might shift some characters towards that.

It seems logical that Korhil is the Captain of the White Lions, a unit composed of White Lions might have the option to do a unit upgrade to include him without tapping the character cap.

Sygerrik
12-03-2010, 15:54
Well, if the limit is on "characters," then Assassins and SC upgrades like Skweel, Korhil and Kouran will be included. They are characters, they're just characters that don't take a Lord or Hero slot. If the % is based on "Lords and Heroes" then you will get as many free Assassins as you want; if it's Characters, you won't. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Of course, without the wording of the rule in question we have no idea.

willowdark
12-03-2010, 16:11
GW never uses the word 'slot.' An Assassin doesn't count as a hero 'choice' that you can make in your list.

If it doesn't count as a choice, it shouldn't be included in the cap.

shadowskale
12-03-2010, 16:29
If any Lizardmen players are considering throwing their Slann in the trash, send it to me instead. I've always wanted to paint that model. :)

Lol I have the OOP slann you can paint if you like :p

Finnigan2004
12-03-2010, 19:17
GW never uses the word 'slot.' An Assassin doesn't count as a hero 'choice' that you can make in your list.

If it doesn't count as a choice, it shouldn't be included in the cap.

I tend to agree that it probably wouldn't be included in the cap, if there is one. That said, if there were a cap it probably should be. Putting a cap on characters and letting one army get around it with several hundred points of assassin characters would not be appropriate.

Malorian
12-03-2010, 19:26
If there are going to be less heros then more assassins doesn't make much tactical sense anyway.

Yes I know they can take out rank and file as well but their best roll is killing off characters.

Assassin or not, when I flank you (and this will be easier to do as you spent a ton of points on assassins thus I have more units) it isn't going to matter and I'm still going to break you.

willowdark
12-03-2010, 19:34
Tons of points on Assassins? More like a full cap spent on casters and I still can take a Fighter, which gives me an advantage, which is what Assassins are supposed to do.

Malorian
12-03-2010, 20:13
You have a unit of spearmen with an assassin.

I have a unit of shield orcs and a fast cav unit to redirect you.

Once I'm in your flank it's doesn't matter about the assassin, you are going to lose.

willowdark
12-03-2010, 20:20
This is silly. You said that taking tons of Assassins will limit the DE's options for troops. I said the main advantage is that I can max out on casters and still take a fighter, which is the purpose of the Assassin.

With 6 levels of magic and one Assassin you'll still have to contend with my supports every bit as much as I have to deal with yours'. So how can you marginalize it like that?

Malorian
12-03-2010, 20:29
Because the main target of the assassin is killing characters. Magic has nothing to do with it.

There are less characters = assassins are less useful.

willowdark
12-03-2010, 20:34
That's one use for them, but not the only. Assassins are a hero-level fighter with a high damage output. I use mine to support infantry through kills and target large monsters. Those roles won't be marginalized by a lack of characters on the field. Even an assassin kitted with KB will still have a role against Knights.

And it has everything to do with Magic, because other armies that invest in magic won't have room under the cap to invest in fighters, but DE will.

My point was that people who are greedy with Assassins will suffer diminishing returns, but that's already the case. Players who take a single Assassin will have an advantage in the cap era.

Malorian
12-03-2010, 20:38
I see your point but I don't think it really matters.

Really the extra damage an assassin can add to a unit is no more than the opponent can get with a support unit of the same cost (this was my point).

So if you are looking at strictly 'character type models' then yes DE will have an advantage but in game it won't amount to much.

willowdark
12-03-2010, 21:13
Except that fighter characters support units without taking up frontage. So while a single unit of Warriors would only reliably beat the weakest of units alone, a unit of Warriors supported by both a Character _and_ a support unit, like a Chariot or even DR on the flank, will have a better chance of winning than just the spears+support without the Character.

Fighter characters on foot are generally considered to be weak because it's so easy to flank a unit of spears, but a revealed assassin will fight on that flank, and won't be a drain on the armies resources because most of the army is so cheap.

Net result: DE feel the cap less than most armies, especially since they can still bring a magic phase and not have to choose between the two.

Zarroc
12-03-2010, 23:52
If this is true, how the **** are you spose to play VC's... lol they need the chars to keep going :eyebrows:

Grey Mage
13-03-2010, 00:12
TK and OK are the next armybooks to come, within the year or next year. OK have always had trouble with their characters anyway. Skavens, I don't know, but they're supposed to have been written with 8th in mind right? I think people are worrying for nothing, I can't see GW stopping skavens from using bells at 2000. Either the 25% is wrong, either we're missing something (like mounts not in the 25% or something)

I heard my SWs would be out in the fall for six years before it happened. TK and OK could be many years coming.

cornixt
13-03-2010, 01:15
I think there is a simple reason for the 25% rule. It just isn't true. Unless there are load of unknown exceptions, it won't work and goes directly against GWs idea of fantasy - epic heroes fighting. That's the reason they keep doing special characters.

I bet it is just a rule for a paticular scenario, and nothing more.

neXus6
13-03-2010, 01:58
I would die of laughter if they brought in a "max 25% on characters" rule with no exceptions.

It would officially ban Tomb Kings from playing games of less than 860pts as there they MUST take 215 pts of heroes as standard. The Casket of Souls would be illegal in a game of less than 1520pts as it is an upgrade for a character.

Ogres would be illegal in games less than 520pts and Bretonnians illegal in games less than 592pts.

I don't know about anyone else but when I started 500pt games were my basic points level, and I still occationally played them as the years went on.
:p

(Tomb Kings have always been ignored though, I remember when I put my basic 2000pt Tomb King list through that Scandinavian Army Comp rating system someone posted here...apparantly my army was 4 times cheesier than maxed out Daemons. :evilgrin: )

Agnar the Howler
13-03-2010, 02:18
I don't think this rule would be enforceable in the slightest unless official tournament games are organised at higher points levels. Organised tournies wouldn't get anyone but Daemons and Dark Elves turning up because, really, which other armies would have a chance? GW understand money, and they no doubt understand that tournaments need to provide environments where most armies have a shot at winning, otherwise people don't attend and you lose cash. It's also unwise to have a small group of armies that can handle each other, as you'll soon end up with a small handful of players who are bored of coming and facing Kairos/Skulltaker Daemons all day.

It wouldn't be in their best intrests to make winning tournemants with most armies even harder than it already is, nor would it be great to make winning in general harder than it should be against some armies (Goblin Shaman-Spam vs whatever you managed to rustle up springs to mind... although it would be hilarious to watch as each shaman's head blows up one after the other in a single magic phase... I might play a game of the new edition if this had a chance of happening) so it isn't just out of pure hope that I say I think this 25% crap is getting a little too out of hand...

Condottiere
13-03-2010, 11:47
That would be an interesting twist, making it increasingly more dangerous to the caster, every time more magic is pumped into the battle, which would certainly make having a heavy magic army less attractive.

Arkfatalis
13-03-2010, 13:28
I bet they make it so there is a point min point limit so it doesn't screw up armies that have high point characters, such as TK or OK. I don't think GW is that stupid or obsessed with money. Are they?:confused:

snottlebocket
13-03-2010, 14:32
People seem to be forgetting that this has happened before. Back in the 4th edition the average 3000 points army was about the same size as some of the current 1500-2000 points armies.

GW 'persuading' gamers to play much larger games, with much larger (more epxensive) miniature collections simply by changing the rules is something that worked out very well for them in the past.

That said, a 25% limit on characters at the 2000 points level would have two major effects. With some exceptions it would invalidate a many characters and massively improve the game. Vampire counts already changed to the point where you no longer need a thousand points worth of characters and magic to run the army, especially when you know the opponent won't be able to either. Tomb kings still need a lot from their characters but guess what, their new book is coming up around the same time as the 8th edition.

Every other army can get by just fine with 25% characters, save in the knowledge that the other guy can't bring anything that would require a monstrous character combo of your own to counter. Personally I'm sick and tired of playing games where it's possible to bring characters that can personally deal with half an army at their current pointslevel. It's about time dragonlords, greater demons and 20 power dice magic phases are banished to the larger games where they have less of an impact.

malisteen
13-03-2010, 16:41
This rule would be awesome. Warhammer isn't about stupid things like big, fancy dragon models or powerful heros full of personality. Those things should be restricted to 14,000 point games or larger, if not banned outright! After all, Karl Franz would never take part in any battle unless every other man, woman, and child in the Empire was already committed to the engagement. In fact, special characters should all come with the special rule 'not for use in actual games'. Same with lords, large monsters, and rare units.

Warhammer games should be about core block infantry and only core block infantry - all other models should be strictly sideline decorations. Armies not based on solid core block infantry may be terrible for a while, but even so wood elves, brets, and vampire players probably only have three or four years to wait before their new books. They should just be patient and watch their friends play until then. Or better yet, they should go back in time and pick different armies instead. The whiners are just being unreasonable. ;)


As for lizardmen, you'll still see a slann every now and then, although previous comments about the EotG are correct. Just be happy you have some solid core infantry in your list. You may not run the same army composition, but at least you won't have to change factions to play in the new edition.

shaso_iceborn
13-03-2010, 17:03
I have recently heard that not only is the 25% real but that the "average game size" will be increased to 3000 points for tournaments.

That does mean 750 points for heroes so really not that bad.

Commodus Leitdorf
13-03-2010, 17:08
Every other army can get by just fine with 25% characters, save in the knowledge that the other guy can't bring anything that would require a monstrous character combo of your own to counter. Personally I'm sick and tired of playing games where it's possible to bring characters that can personally deal with half an army at their current pointslevel. It's about time dragonlords, greater demons and 20 power dice magic phases are banished to the larger games where they have less of an impact.

Thank you for saying it.

I think people are ignoring the fact that if EVERYONE has this restriction you dont need to have your max load of characters. It could be possible for some armies to just rely on their one uber 500pt lord... and is that guy really scared of a horde of cheap heroes? I mean really? Have people played this edition at all? Cheap meant something back in 6th when stuff simply didn't hit that hard and you could easily swarm someone with loads of the stuff. Cheap in this edition means nothing other then slowly handing your opponent points as opposed to doing it in large chunks.

Factoring in the other supposed changes. I may not be super attractive to go magic overboard so you don't need a large investment in magic. So you've saved points.

If it's true you only get one save, either armour, ward or Regen. Well theres no point in splurging on a 1+ armour save and a 4+ ward. Again, points saved on your characters.

I really think this all has to be seen as a whole before we can make any decisions on it.

Finnigan2004
13-03-2010, 18:21
I have recently heard that not only is the 25% real but that the "average game size" will be increased to 3000 points for tournaments.

That does mean 750 points for heroes so really not that bad.

The problem there will be that GW hardly runs any tourneys in many parts of the world any more. It will really be up to independent organizers in much of North America. That said, I like 3000 point games. It just might be a hard sell in many places though.

snottlebocket
13-03-2010, 18:30
Thank you for saying it.

I think people are ignoring the fact that if EVERYONE has this restriction you dont need to have your max load of characters. It could be possible for some armies to just rely on their one uber 500pt lord... and is that guy really scared of a horde of cheap heroes? I mean really? Have people played this edition at all? Cheap meant something back in 6th when stuff simply didn't hit that hard and you could easily swarm someone with loads of the stuff. Cheap in this edition means nothing other then slowly handing your opponent points as opposed to doing it in large chunks.

Factoring in the other supposed changes. I may not be super attractive to go magic overboard so you don't need a large investment in magic. So you've saved points.

If it's true you only get one save, either armour, ward or Regen. Well theres no point in splurging on a 1+ armour save and a 4+ ward. Again, points saved on your characters.

I really think this all has to be seen as a whole before we can make any decisions on it.

I'm a big fan of understated characters. My current chaos army has 600 points spread over 4 characters. Two scroll caddies with 2 scrolls each to ward of the hideous magical pretences of other players, 2 heroes with a set of armour, a flail and a minor magic item each.

Barring my opponent bringing something hideous, the characters work out just fine. And I enjoy my army a lot more because it leaves me enough points for one or two extra units in my army. I can't tell you how much fun it is to be able to say 'hmm knights, ogres, or dragon ogres... Ill take all three in goodsized units!' and still have points left over for a good sized core section and support.

Urgat
13-03-2010, 19:26
If this is true, how the **** are you spose to play VC's... lol they need the chars to keep going :eyebrows:

Her... they start the battle with troops, like everybody else?

Stronginthearm
13-03-2010, 23:34
I doesn't like the 25% max on heroes, I don't have any good reasons like all of the "very smart people" who have already posted I just doesn't like it, it will be true or it won't be true, end of my say in the matter

TheDarkDuke
16-03-2010, 03:10
I have recently heard that not only is the 25% real but that the "average game size" will be increased to 3000 points for tournaments.

That does mean 750 points for heroes so really not that bad.

That doesn't make sense. No where does the current rules state tournaments are to be run at 2000 points or any points. That is decided by the tournament organizers, not GW. Tournaments might be the easy influx of cash any GW or Indy store gain. Ya umm come down and pay us $20-30 to play on are tables in a tournament, when we let you play there for free every other day/night/weekend... Easy cash flow.

They went away from percentages for a reason, to bring them back may just finally put the nail in the coffin of fantasy... but that would open up more time for power armour... hmm I think I'm on to something here.

Condottiere
16-03-2010, 04:43
With 25% character cap, at what point level would it be inviable to have a Lord?

Lord Solar Plexus
16-03-2010, 06:27
They went away from percentages for a reason, to bring them back may just finally put the nail in the coffin of fantasy... but that would open up more time for power armour... hmm I think I'm on to something here.

I think such sentiments are, to phrase it diplomatically, complete and utter nonsense.


With 25% character cap, at what point level would it be inviable to have a Lord?

Depends on the army and personal taste?

ChaosVC
16-03-2010, 08:13
I will still take a lord if he is the only character I can afford to take in the army. It will only make the game more interesting in a fluffier then bunny way.