PDA

View Full Version : Help a returning player out - what's wrong with 8th ed?



IcedCrow
14-01-2011, 16:54
I've read a lot of things about people bashing 8th ed. I got the book last week. It seems solid. Solid enough that I'm excited to play it again after a long hiatus from the game.

What are people hating on exactly?

TwoBitWriter
14-01-2011, 17:06
I think it is inevitable whenever any game goes through a version change.

However, I truly believe that these changes have been made for the better.

DaemonReign
14-01-2011, 17:07
Wow this is the sort of thread-opening that'll either grow exponentially due to it's broadness or not grow at all due it's vagueness.

There are complains about 8th Ed, all though most people seem to think it's still better than 7th Ed. Any one guy is not gonna have the same complains, the same number of complaints, or the same graveness of these complaints.. here's a couple of examples of stuff that I have seen people complain about:

- Steadfast is too good. Some think it should be negated by disruption, I think it should be negated by "aggregate ranks" instead of just "ha! I got the Biggest unit!", and some people play alot against Skaven so I guess they don't like the rule at all.

- The Horde-rule, as well, is complained about. It makes units like Bloodletters seriously horrible to face when they go 40+ i size. Doesn't matter how many you kill, they will still mow you down. Chaos warriors, executioners.. People that get run over by this alot have started to hate the horderule.

- The Nuke Spells. People that get hit alot with Dwellers or the Purple Sun have taken a stance against these super-top spells of each of the new lores.

- The magic Phase. People like me who used to play Tzeentch Daemons in 7th Ed really miss the "scaling" aspect of Power Dice generation.

- True Line of Sight. An addition to the game that alot of people just ignore simply because it's so horrendously lame.

- No Guessing for Warmachines. Warmachines are now a hell of alot more accurate. People that face alot of gunlines have gotten weary of this, as can be expected.

Beyond this there's some minor issues, but these would be the broad strokes I guess.

Now on the POSITIVE side there's alot of stuff as well:

- Balance Balance Balance!! For example: In 7th Ed Dwarves did not stand a chance against DoC, in 8th Ed the outcome is absolutely unknown. The Tier-system of 7th have been shuffled a little bit, and beyond all compressed so that "almost" every race can compete with almost every other race. There are a couple of sad 6th Ed examples perhaps.. There you actually need to be a really good player to compete.

- The flow of the game is seriously increased.

- The new BrB is huge and Support for 8th Ed has been very good so far, for being GW.

All in all, I am a big fan!

Cheers.

Ultimate Life Form
14-01-2011, 17:09
What is wrong with 8th?

Nothing.

What do people hate?

Insanely powerful Magic that is easily abusable (Purple Sun is a potential first turn kill), simplified movement rules (oh no random charges there goes tactics out of the window), and overly random stuff happening all the time (oh look it's a forest, let's enter it and see if it kills us). Also the objective-based gameplay doesn't sit well with critics; some people simply can't accept that they'll have to bring a few standards in order not to auto-lose a certain scenario.

I think the main problem is that people are used to the way 6th/7th played and that 8th is a huge deviation from that path. Either you love it because you feel it's superior (for example I think movement is like heaven now as it's so smooth), can accustom to it, or you feel they ruined 'your' game, leading to you hating it. I doubt there can be a neutral stance in regards to this unless you never played Warhammer before 8th.

Basically you have to accept that this is the direction the designers wanted to go with the game. It does not indicate any loss of quality over previous editions in any way, just a style change. As always in such cases, this will spawn some discord.

hashrat
14-01-2011, 17:16
Nothing wrong with 8th, other than the usual army book issues.

The focus on initiative and steadfast hurts Bretonnians, who now seem very overpriced.
A KOTR is getting hit by 3.5 Stormvermin before he lifts his sword in self defence.
Compared to DE who theoretically suffer from the step up rule and lack of armour but thanks to high initiative get on fine with 8th, some armies will suffer no doubt.

There are spells that can be scary, but are more often than not utterly unreliable when not intentionally abused.

Ridden monsters and M&H suffered from some oversimplified rules (Just my opinion) and ridden monsters can be hard to justify with the loss of unit strength, reducing them to supporting roles. Hardly the stuff of legend.

The battles require a brush and shovel for casually removal and the book weighs around 8 tonnes.

Emissary
14-01-2011, 17:18
Overall, I'd just like to get rid if IR. I just feel it's a relic. Get rid of it and a lot of things fall into line.

Overall, I really like 8th a lot more. I've noticed at our store the people that complain about it are also the ones that aren't adjusting their armies to 8th. They want to play their 7th armies like they did and still roll over their opponents and it doesn't happen.

Malorian
14-01-2011, 17:21
Overall, I'd just like to get rid if IR. I just feel it's a relic. Get rid of it and a lot of things fall into line.

By IR do you mean irresistable force?


If so I would agree.

I also think the system would work if you added than double 1s is an auto fail like in 7th, and the spell doesn't go off even if it was cast with irresistable force.

Emissary
14-01-2011, 17:25
Yup, I think it takes out a lot of problems people have in the game: 1st turn bad spells, Teclis, Powerscroll... A high enough dice roll to cast should be enough.

Edit: No idea why I called it IR. It's just been a long day.

DaemonReign
14-01-2011, 17:27
(oh no random charges there goes tactics out of the window)

While I sort of support alot of the stuff you bring up, or rather "share your point of view".. I really don't think Tactics are gone from charging. An element of gamble has been added for sure. It took some getting used to, but I've come to enjoy the change personally.. Just saying.



Ridden monsters and M&H suffered from some oversimplified rules (Just my opinion) and ridden monsters can be hard to justify with the loss of unit strength, reducing them to supporting roles. Hardly the stuff of legend.


This is actually one of those "minor" things that I really wanted to bring up in my previous post. I think it's completely fubar that a Lord on Dragon, or Greater Daemon, count has having No Ranks when charging some peasant losers in the Flank/Rear. It's just terrible. One can of course glance into the crystal ball and see how people would **** and whine the other way too: Monster would be too good..

IcedCrow
14-01-2011, 17:32
Coming from 6th/7th ... I love that infantry got a boost.

One thing that I did not like about 6th/7th at all was the heavy focus on cavalry. They were just too good. Infantry were too easy to handle. Init on the charge plus being fast so you should be charging plus no strikes back equals cavalry are too dominant and were too dominant.

I haven't played yet though so I have to keep that in reserve for when I have seen it in action. My chaos warriors, however, are excited.

I totally get the "I used to steamroll you in 7th edition with my army of doom and now I can't" complaint. I hear that a lot in a lot of games. I don't really have any sympathy for it.

I was a VC player in 5th edition. They got smacked down in 6th edition. Then made powerful again in 7th.

Or HE who were gods in 5th edition, weak as hell in 6th edition, etc... that's just the nature of the hobby.

Crutches getting kicked out from under you make you a better player overall I think.

Monsters getting neutred is also good IMO. I love Warmaster and how characters and monsters ARE support units. That is to me what it should be. I never liked a game that was dominated by a character on his pet dragon. To me that's not a wargame.

That's D&D.

Just my opinion though. I'm excited for the changes that came through. My group is starting back with 40k but hopefully by Mar or Apr they will have fantasy armies ready to go and I can get back to making battle reports like I used to.

Razakel
14-01-2011, 17:37
I really like 8th edition, much more than 7th, regardless of all the Purple Suns. Then again I am a Dwarf player, and the Dwarves by and large prospered under 8th because of the boost to infantry.

Llew
14-01-2011, 17:42
I've read a lot of things about people bashing 8th ed. I got the book last week. It seems solid. Solid enough that I'm excited to play it again after a long hiatus from the game.

What are people hating on exactly?

It's not Kings of War. ;)

But more to the point, the magic seems to be a point of contention. Powerful, game-changing spells are easier to get out. The game encourages large units which make those game-changing spells more likely to be game-changing. Some people hate pre-measuring and despise random charge distances.

In short, the griping is the kind of thing that tends to happen when the way a particular game is played is changed in some significant ways. WFB will always have some flaws, and GW will revise the game to move the flaws around. (To be fair, some of what people consider flaws are really fundamental changes in the underlying tactics, and they just don't like those changes.) If you like GW systems, odds are you'll learn to love this one and it's different flaws as much as you've loved a previous edition.

hashrat
14-01-2011, 17:42
This is actually one of those "minor" things that I really wanted to bring up in my previous post. I think it's completely fubar that a Lord on Dragon, or Greater Daemon, count has having No Ranks when charging some peasant losers in the Flank/Rear. It's just terrible. One can of course glance into the crystal ball and see how people would **** and whine the other way too: Monster would be too good..

True sadly.
I take this view from more of a fluff perspective, Dragon and Hero vs 20 Skaven Slaves. In what weir world do the Slaves win?
In the world of 8th.

This is not a big bone of contention for me, but I find it a bit sad that I cannot justify a expensive and beautiful centre piece, at around 500 points a model should supporting flank charges and artillery hunting really be their only viable role?
Considering combat resolution will send them running and a single spell can remove both, they sure are expensive.

@ IcedCrow
Good points, I certainly don't want super monsters, just balanced ones.

Ultimate Life Form
14-01-2011, 17:48
I take this view from more of a fluff perspective, Dragon and Hero vs 20 Skaven Slaves. In what weir world do the Slaves win?
In the world of 8th.


I doubt that 20 Slaves would ever win against a Hero on Dragon. They had serious trouble dealing with my lowly Scarvet on Cold One, and only won because they managed to score two lucky wounds after several turns. A kitted Hero on Dragon would rip right through them.

Emissary
14-01-2011, 17:48
Now that I think about it, I would also not allow units to roll for steadfast on the general's Inspiring Presence, but would allow them to use a character's LD within the unit.

IcedCrow
14-01-2011, 17:54
A 500 point dragon riding hero should be as effective as a 500 point unit of cavalry or infantry, I agree. They never have gotten that right though.

plantagenet
14-01-2011, 17:59
I also agree whole heartedly with the person who said it is time for irresistible force to go. Note however miscasts should stay, as a down side for trying to force too much magic through. So roll a double six and you have to roll on the miscast table your spell only goes off if you rolled high enough and enemy first dispel it with dice or scroll.
This combined with a maximum of one wound to the large spells would in my opinion elimonate alot of people gripes with the game

Overall I am a fan

DaemonReign
14-01-2011, 18:02
True sadly.
I take this view from more of a fluff perspective,

Exactly. This is my take on it too: Just give 'em a rank, they're huge towering monsters for christ's sake.

It's of course true what others are saying that a 5-600 point Lord (of any kind) is likely to handle himself against weak rnf-troops in either case. You got the ThunderStomp and the fact that most such units won't be able to 'cause any wounds back.. Still.. On the strictly Fluffy plane of thought, it just doesn't rhyme well how little psychological impact large monsters have in 8th.

But then again that is probably just another recoil from 7th Ed. Together with "Fear" and so on. So you win some and lose some I guess..

hashrat
14-01-2011, 18:07
I doubt that 20 Slaves would ever win against a Hero on Dragon. They had serious trouble dealing with my lowly Scarvet on Cold One, and only won because they managed to score two lucky wounds after several turns. A kitted Hero on Dragon would rip right through them.

Just used them as a somewhat tongue in cheek example :)
But you can't kit up anything in a 2K battle, you can't go over the 500 point limit.
Further more those Slaves actually have a better initiative lol.
Assuming the dice actually co-operate when you attack they are still steadfast with only a single rank.
Given a rank bonus and banner they may well win on resolution alone, in their turn as a rule.
Say you kill 13 on the charge, using breath. They lose but are steadfast and pass the LD test, you spend another turn in combat and the next one is with 2d6 fewer attacks.
In short a unit of '20 anything' is a surprising challenge.
Perhaps it should be?

Sorry if I derailed the topic :D
I really do enjoy 8th, pretty much got me back into the hobby.

Edit
I don't mind IF, but as someone who often rolls no more than 3 dice at a spell I was stunned by how devastating misscasts are.
I think a system that offered differing miscast results based on the number of dice rolled or spell level would be nicer.
IE; the nastier the spell, the more dangerous the miscast.

Wyrmnax
14-01-2011, 18:08
I really liked the change that 8th edition brought to the game.

I like the infantary focus much more than the 7th edition cavalary wars.


There are a couple of things that i dislike about 8th too, there always is. I think the most proeminent of this is magic and artillery killing games at turn 1, especially on smallish games.

Also, there are people that will bitch and moan whenever anything changes.

mrtn
14-01-2011, 23:59
I've read a lot of things about people bashing 8th ed. I got the book last week. It seems solid. Solid enough that I'm excited to play it again after a long hiatus from the game.

What are people hating on exactly?
Don't believe the whines. When there's a poll attached to the thread, the thread may be half haters, but when you check the poll numbers a big majority prefer 8th, it's just that some people go on and on about how bad 8th is, over several posts.

A small number of posters can make a large number of negative posts.

silashand
15-01-2011, 01:54
Don't believe the whines. When there's a poll attached to the thread, the thread may be half haters, but when you check the poll numbers a big majority prefer 8th, it's just that some people go on and on about how bad 8th is, over several posts.

I would like to see your evidence for such a claim as I have not seen it. WFB has almost died where I live and in at least one other area I know of because of 8th edition. I know some people like it, but many do not. I think your dismissal of those who dislike it as "whiners" is mostly wrong. The complaints against the system are valid even if you and/or some others don't agree. For instance, while I like a lot of the changes 8th has brought, IMO the negatives so outweigh them that many games I've played/witnessed just aren't fun anymore:

- magic: uber spells that can win a game in one casting? who thought that one up? I hear all the time from people who don't think it's an issue, but I've seen it happen too many times to give the naysayers much credence on the issue.

- deathstar units: when I kill 99/100 models I expect that to be worth something in a game I play. That it is not is just plain ridiculous.

- skirmishers: not only do they no longer function as skirmishers should, the only ones worth taking now are those with good shooting ala Flamers. Tell me exactly how a scouting unit is supposed to hide when it has to remain in formation? Say what?

- True Line of Stupid: enough has been said about this abomination of a rule that I won't go into it other than to say it's just plain wrong for a system that calls itself a wargame.

- support units: while cavalry may have been too good in the past, now tell me how often you see most of them in the game? A lot of this may be due to how steadfast works, but frankly, the only thing I've seen of late are mega magic and supersized units with the occasional undercosted monster thrown in (Abomination, Hydra, etc.). This method of army construction is no better, and in some cases worse, than the MSU style from the last edition.

- steadfast: while in principle the idea may be sound, there should be a means of disrupting such units. Otherwise the games just end up a slug fest which is my experience. People just take larger and larger units until there's nothing much left for the rest of the army. If this is supposedly better I don't see it. IMO they should have kept the Unit Strength idea as it was cleaner, more representative and easier to adjudicate.

- fear/terror: while I agree it was overpowered in the last edition, now it's almost worthless. In the last dozen games I've played I have yet to see either of them have any effect at all in a game and IMO that's just plain wrong. Fear may be okay by itself, but the terror rules were watered down *far* too much IMO in a game where you have creatures like dragons, greater daemons, etc.

Other than these major issues I happen to like most of the other changes. But as I said, these seem to cause so much heartache in game that they overshadow anything positive the rest of the rules bring to the table. JMO though.

Cheers, Gary

PS. And the power scroll should never have made it past the idea stage, let alone into the printed rulebook!

mrtn
15-01-2011, 05:19
I would like to see your evidence for such a claim as I have not seen it. WFB has almost died where I live and in at least one other area I know of because of 8th edition.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272838

I was talking threads, not how people in Colorado feel about it, of which I had no idea until your post. That thread has almost as many negative as positive posts (as far as I can remember, don't bother to count ;) ), but the poll show that 76% think 8th is better than 7th.

Happy people usually don't go into details about how good something is, while unhappy people often do.

"Whines" may have been a bad choice of words, complaints could have been better, I'm not a native English speaker.

Seville
15-01-2011, 05:27
I've read a lot of things about people bashing 8th ed. I got the book last week. It seems solid. Solid enough that I'm excited to play it again after a long hiatus from the game.

What are people hating on exactly?

Your first impression is right. 8th ed is solid. All the bitching and moaning is just typical Warseer bitching and moaning.

Carry on!

silashand
15-01-2011, 06:10
I was talking threads, not how people in Colorado feel about it, of which I had no idea until your post. That thread has almost as many negative as positive posts (as far as I can remember, don't bother to count ;) ), but the poll show that 76% think 8th is better than 7th.

For the record, I am not exclusively talking about Colorado. And though those numbers may seem impressive, of all the Warhammer players I know in this area and elsewhere, only a handful actually frequent Warseer so the odds of this one internet poll actually being accurate is highly suspect at best.


Happy people usually don't go into details about how good something is, while unhappy people often do.

From a psychology standpoint, people tend to talk about what they enjoy more than what they don't. Perhaps on the internet it may seem the negative voices are more prevalent, but that is not indicative of human nature.


"Whines" may have been a bad choice of words, complaints could have been better, I'm not a native English speaker.

No worries. FYI, in English, "whine" has a very negative connotation about those labeled as such, i.e. it generally means they are complaining without reason. Thus being called a "whiner" is usually considered an insult.

All this said, the points I raised about 8th edition stand. They are the primary reasons why many people I know have either quit playing, or resorted to some form of comp to mitigate the issues so they are not so problematic. I never said the problems were insurmountable, but if you choose not to do something about them then the game is often far less enjoyable in my experience, to the point where at least for me I simply don't want to even bother playing.

Cheers, Gary

Seville
15-01-2011, 07:42
No worries. FYI, in English, "whine" has a very negative connotation about those labeled as such, i.e. it generally means they are complaining without reason. Thus being called a "whiner" is usually considered an insult.

Yes, "whine" is exactly the appropriate word to use. He got it right the first time.

Maoriboy007
15-01-2011, 09:43
Yes, "whine" is exactly the appropriate word to use. He got it right the first time.

Not really, complaint is more appropriate as many of the negative comments about 8th are just as legitimate as the positives.
Its like being at a restaurant and being served a delicious steak topped with toenail clippings, I'd complain then too.

OldMan
15-01-2011, 11:28
8th is a lot of excellent ideas, that have gone too far.

As Gary sad, steafast is too powerfull turning `games into unit size competition. If my opponent take unit of 40, and i take 2 units of twenty, than i am hurting myself. When i attack with one unit and flank with the other, the opponent unit will be steadfast, and i will achieve nothing, unitil i kill half of the unit. If i take unit of 40 too, and just send it forward, and if i have lucky rolls, i can break unit in turn 1.

For the same reason, and because of random charges and striking in I order, there is really no point for baiting and fleeing. And if i surround opponent and send him fleeing through my units, he will just take difficult terrain test (the biggest WTF?!! moment i had with 8th).

And this leads to my main source of frustration: I can't outthink my opponent. With random charges and steadfast there is no way around - i just have too kill them all, and the best way to do that is to tacle opponent head-on, after peppering him with magic and shooting.

GotrekFan
15-01-2011, 14:19
8th is solid, we had 2 guys in our group who were whiners after reading the rules & for weeks refused to play (1 of them would only play 6th ed vamps in 7th ed WFB), but after a while, the gave it a shot & they forgot their grumbles.
Random Charges add an element of risk to the game & took the game away from the cavalry who could no longer sit on the edge of S&S range to power through in their charge.
Fear/ terror has been reduced dramatically, but as units have to test for it every turn, it can really help in the drawn out fights. My only problem is that Terror is now a panic test, so units that are immune to panic are now immune to Terror.
I was originally a dwarf player (now VC) & was of the opinion that War Machine guessing was a science/ art, so would have preferred to keep guess ranges but love the removal of partial hits as it used to cause a ton of "discussions" mid-game.
Magic is impressive, but after facing almost all the lores so far, it is the buffs & cheap MM spells that are cast more often & while it is scary when dwellers is attempted or gets off, there is a significant chance that the caster will implode, etc, which is fine by me.

Seville
15-01-2011, 15:08
Not really, complaint is more appropriate as many of the negative comments about 8th are just as legitimate as the positives.
Its like being at a restaurant and being served a delicious steak topped with toenail clippings, I'd complain then too.

I know! I was just playing around :) I wish the internet had tone of voice.

I understand some of the complaints are legit, but, I really do think that on the whole, 8th is pretty good, and I do think a lot of people on this forum just like to complain and won't be happy with anything.

GenerationTerrorist
15-01-2011, 15:31
The only real issue I have with 8th Edition is the seemingly abusable mega-spells that can wipe out half an army in one go. That, plus Teclis/Kairos lists.

The general game mechanic, however, is much better and more rounded than previous editions. I am enjoying it quite a lot so far. The armies tend to be so much more evenly balanced compared to the MASSIVE gap in relative power between some (Daemons, Dark Elves, etc) and others (Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins, etc) there was in 7th edition.

Some armies remain utterly hopeless, though - Wood Elves, Tomb Kings and Ogres are still pretty poor, IMHO.

theorox
15-01-2011, 16:14
I just started a poll to get more scope on what people here actually think. It might not prove anything indefinately, but it really should help to put this debate into perspective. Go vote guys, whatever your opinion! :)

Theo

The bearded one
15-01-2011, 16:15
If we're lucky 9th edition fixes a ton of the existing flaws.

Often it's just utterly incomprehensable that some stuff made it through the playtesting phase. Does anyone here know how GW does it's playtesting? Play 2 games to test a rule and then continue on?

Overall I love 8th ( boosted my dwarfs, now I can finally kill stuff in combat instead of combat res and tooled up heroes ) although it has it's flaws of course and many things that could have been very good with a minor tweak like..

when a unit is disrupted by a flank charge it loses steadfast
irresistible force on 2-3 dice a less punishing miscast table
Magic resistance saves allowed against the 'no save spells' ( but not normal wardsaves added up to those )
Monsters count as 1 rank of 5 models for the purpose of calculating steadfast ( that way 5 goblins looking up at a stegadon won't be steadfast just 'cause the general says "oi, gitz!" )
Burn the powerscroll and jump up and down on the ashes

stuff like that.

But overall? Pleased as punch.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
15-01-2011, 17:04
Does anyone here know how GW does it's playtesting?

It is not really known how they do it at the moment. It has been some time since they quit using external playtesters. When they were using them, the system they employed sounded very badly organized (from what little we know of it, mainly articles by former Techpriests, or whatever they were called at the time).

The bearded one
15-01-2011, 17:08
I'm almost fearful it's worse than taking a magic eightball, asking it "is this a good rule" and shaking..

silashand
15-01-2011, 18:18
I just started a poll to get more scope on what people here actually think. It might not prove anything indefinately, but it really should help to put this debate into perspective. Go vote guys, whatever your opinion! :)

As I noted earlier, I doubt it will be very useful given that of the vast number of Warhammer players I've met everywhere I go, few of them frequent Warseer. Plus, of those who don't care for 8th edition and have moved on or quit, they obviously will not see the thread anyway.

Please note I am not saying people who enjoy 8th should not do so. If you like it, great. However, I prefer a more competitive game and currently 8th edition does not and cannot provide that.


As far as I can tell from playing several kinds of games with several kinds of people, real "gamers" like less random games that they can practice and become experts at, while casual game players like more random games so they aren't always losing to people who have a lot more time to spend on games.

Someone else on another forum said the above which I think sums up the matter perfectly:


8th is a lot of excellent ideas, that have gone too far.

And this leads to my main source of frustration: I can't outthink my opponent. With random charges and steadfast there is no way around - i just have too kill them all, and the best way to do that is to tacle opponent head-on, after peppering him with magic and shooting.

Unfortunately, that is my exact experience under 8th edition and why I dislike it. It has gone way too far into the realm of the proverbial "beer & pretzels" game than I care for.

Cheers, Gary

GotrekFan
15-01-2011, 19:25
Some armies remain utterly hopeless, though - Wood Elves, Tomb Kings and Ogres are still pretty poor, IMHO.

I dunno, I watched a TK army destroy a tournament ready Dwarf army the other week.
Big units of infantry, 2 Organ guns, a cannon & a GT.
The TK had 2 Skull Throwers, a big unit of archers, a big unit of spearmen & a few other bits.

Thanks to the TK magic phase he was usually firing the catapults twice a turn & volley fire skeletons hitting on 5+ takes it's toll eventually. I think that the biggest drawback to the TK is that they were written for 6th ed, so a lot of their rules & magic items have been cancelled out, but they are quite playable.

Ogres are also playable, but the step-up rule hamstrings them the most. Ogres can now get ranks, usually +2 as most Ogre Bull units I've seen were 8 strong.

I've not seen WE in play this edition, but I think volley fire is their friend & now tree kin are an option. I reckon we can also see more warhawks making use of the Vanguard rule. Sure the skirmishing units have been tamed a bit, but I still hold to the argument, "How often do you really need 360 degree LOS?", but if the can lure people into a wood, the they are the steadfast ones, not the ranked units.

BEEGfrog
15-01-2011, 19:32
As a gamer of multiple games systems of almost every possible background and levels of realism, 8th is a better game with a better balance than either 5th, 6th or 7th editions.

The only appallingly bad feature is Total Line of Sight. The others are internally balanced to a greater or lesser extent, either by points cost or games features.

IcedCrow
15-01-2011, 21:27
I don't mind the more casual approach. To be honest I'm just looking to have fun and play a game once in a while these days. I don't have the time I had 10 years ago to organize and go to events. We're doing a battle a month now and that's with 40k alternating with fantasy.

TheYoungin
16-01-2011, 05:43
It definitly seems like it turned into a game more of chance and some armies are way too overpowered, but after all the new army books come out that will be all done with. But by then another rulebook will be out, so the hate cycle can go on forever if you have that mindset.

Other than those two things 8th seems great so far.

IcedCrow
16-01-2011, 06:46
It definitly seems like it turned into a game more of chance and some armies are way too overpowered, but after all the new army books come out that will be all done with. But by then another rulebook will be out, so the hate cycle can go on forever if you have that mindset.

Other than those two things 8th seems great so far.

To be honest, it's always been like that (some armies being way overpowered)

Every edition has its chosen armies that are the top tier and heavily represented, especially in the competitive circuits.

I don't think that that will ever change.

Jind_Singh
16-01-2011, 06:54
For me it's just a few small things that made something that could have amazing into something that is still good but fell short of being amazing

1) FREE WHEEL when you charge, and then 'close the door'.

This rule allows the unit to wheel once during it's charge, for free, touch the enemy, and then wheel again to close the door - for free.

So you just measure the closet point from charging unit into the victim unit, roll the dice, and if your in, your in!

Now I can see why they did this, it speeds up gameplay, it makes for faster charging, but it also allows for stupid charges - a unit could be ten wide, it can wheel for free which could end up as 8" of movement! Then it charges and 'closes the door'.

Now a unit has a stupid high charge, there's no real draw back, and it just seems OTT - there should have been a limit to how many inches were allowed for free at the start, or just include them into the charge.

TRUE LINE OF SIGHT

What a waste of time - it works fine in 40K, but did they really need it for this game system? I think not - just make it so infantry blocked lOS to other infantry, warbeasts provided cover to units behind, cav would stick out and could see, but be seen, over the other two. That would have been easier - leave area terrain as area terrain, so hills are assumed to be an elevation above (like before). True LOS just adds problems to be honest, and not fun problems either.

TERRAIN

While I love how the rules really allow terrain to be useful now, they kind of went overboard with some stuff - even something as small as taking DT tests if you march in woods, or just say no marching in woods, just normal movement only - something to reflect how bloody hard it is to travel in woods BY YOURSELF, yet alone in formation with 30-60 mates!

Otherwise that's really about it - sure there are some small things here and there that make you think...oh, ok - wow, that's strange - they don't really mess the game up - but the above things just seemed too much for me - the combat is great now, love that armies look like armies now, and even magic is great - sure it's all open to abuse but when wasn't it?!

But overall I still standby the game - even starting another army soon, Skaven, and it's still alive and kicking. If anything I have to thank 8th ed as it made me start 40K and now I've doubled up my hobby fun (and expenses!), as I was able to finally appreciate the art of 40k - which is awesome as I love the models and fluff!

Don't be too worried about the whine posts - there are always a percentage of people who hate changes, and lets face it - 8th was a HUGE change to how we play our main game!

Seville
16-01-2011, 06:55
To be honest, it's always been like that (some armies being way overpowered)

Every edition has its chosen armies that are the top tier and heavily represented, especially in the competitive circuits.

I don't think that that will ever change.

Dude, you're absolutely right. I think you got the answer to your question and this thread is basically done - nothing is wrong with 8th. Now go play it and have fun! :)

I like your win record, by the way. Almost as good as mine. Almost.

Foxbat
16-01-2011, 15:59
The biggest rules goof in 8th edition is with Stone Throwers. Being laser guided and all partials being auto hits just goofs up the game.

All the other issues are primarily ones that affect various players’ favourite armies, which most of the time can be addressed through careful army construction and/or change in their gaming tactics.

The bearded one
16-01-2011, 16:15
The biggest rules goof in 8th edition is with Stone Throwers. Being laser guided and all partials being auto hits just goofs up the game.

While they increased the accuracy of stonethrowers ( no more guessing, no more partials ), they did try to counter balance that by making stonethrowers strenght 3 ( 9 in the middle ) instead of 4 (8), allowing armoursaves and making only the middle inflict D6 wounds.

Many stonethrowers have their own special rules though
- armourpiercing, large template mortars,
- large template str5 rocket batteries,
- trebuchets are str5 IIRC,
- str5 screaming skull catapults,
- str5 hellcannons,
- dwarf grudge throwers can be increased in accuracy and strenght,
- plagueclaw catapults large template, str 2 no armoursave allowed
- scraplauncher, str3, large template, killing blow.

a small strenght 3 template is about as devastating as a volley or two of arrows, it's the armybooks that are making them like guided bombs. Howmany armies actually have a normal stonethrower that works like in the BRB? Orcs&Goblins, unupgraded dwarf grudge throwers and I guess the beastmen cygor.

Foxbat
16-01-2011, 17:19
Many stonethrowers have their own special rules though
- armourpiercing, large template mortars,
- large template str5 rocket batteries,
- trebuchets are str5 IIRC,
- str5 screaming skull catapults,
- str5 hellcannons,
- dwarf grudge throwers can be increased in accuracy and strenght,
- plagueclaw catapults large template, str 2 no armoursave allowed
- scraplauncher, str3, large template, killing blow.

a small strenght 3 template is about as devastating as a volley or two of arrows, it's the armybooks that are making them like guided bombs. Howmany armies actually have a normal stonethrower that works like in the BRB? Orcs&Goblins, unupgraded dwarf grudge throwers and I guess the beastmen cygor.These are just examples of why Stone Throwers being laser guided is a problem. The fact that only two Stone Throwers (O&G and Cygor examples) uses the BRB rules and can't be easily adjusted (i.e. as compared to the Dwarf version) just further supports the argument that this rule change was a gigantic goof-up.

Jorgen_CAB
16-01-2011, 19:13
For me it's just a few small things that made something that could have amazing into something that is still good but fell short of being amazing

1) FREE WHEEL when you charge, and then 'close the door'.

This rule allows the unit to wheel once during it's charge, for free, touch the enemy, and then wheel again to close the door - for free.

So you just measure the closet point from charging unit into the victim unit, roll the dice, and if your in, your in!

Now I can see why they did this, it speeds up gameplay, it makes for faster charging, but it also allows for stupid charges - a unit could be ten wide, it can wheel for free which could end up as 8" of movement! Then it charges and 'closes the door'.

Now a unit has a stupid high charge, there's no real draw back, and it just seems OTT - there should have been a limit to how many inches were allowed for free at the start, or just include them into the charge.

TRUE LINE OF SIGHT

What a waste of time - it works fine in 40K, but did they really need it for this game system? I think not - just make it so infantry blocked lOS to other infantry, warbeasts provided cover to units behind, cav would stick out and could see, but be seen, over the other two. That would have been easier - leave area terrain as area terrain, so hills are assumed to be an elevation above (like before). True LOS just adds problems to be honest, and not fun problems either.

TERRAIN

While I love how the rules really allow terrain to be useful now, they kind of went overboard with some stuff - even something as small as taking DT tests if you march in woods, or just say no marching in woods, just normal movement only - something to reflect how bloody hard it is to travel in woods BY YOURSELF, yet alone in formation with 30-60 mates!

Otherwise that's really about it - sure there are some small things here and there that make you think...oh, ok - wow, that's strange - they don't really mess the game up - but the above things just seemed too much for me - the combat is great now, love that armies look like armies now, and even magic is great - sure it's all open to abuse but when wasn't it?!

But overall I still standby the game - even starting another army soon, Skaven, and it's still alive and kicking. If anything I have to thank 8th ed as it made me start 40K and now I've doubled up my hobby fun (and expenses!), as I was able to finally appreciate the art of 40k - which is awesome as I love the models and fluff!

Don't be too worried about the whine posts - there are always a percentage of people who hate changes, and lets face it - 8th was a HUGE change to how we play our main game!

I completely agree with this, these are the same "complaint" that I have. Otherwise I like the rest of the rules, 8th edition is by far the best edition for years.... to be honest I don't remember how they were in 1st-4th anymore so I can at least say that 8th is better than 5th-7th rules.

Maoriboy007
16-01-2011, 20:04
Its worth saying that essentially 8th is not really any worse or any better than 7th , just a lot different.
I think a lot of the "whining" as it were stems from the fact that so many were expecting this great step forward when really it was a giant step sideways. We are still in a very diiferent place, which is kind of refreshing, but still no real progression as far as where we were hoping the game might go.

I dont have as much of a problem with random charges and step up for example, as I do with striking in initiative , which makes charging nearly pointless.
I have no problem with fear being depowered, but object to it being useless.
Steadfast was a good idea, but being unable to disrupt it was a terrible idea.
Bait and fleeing is actually still valid, and is actually very similar to how it worked in 6th which I prefered to the 7th rules.
The new TLOS and the unit type systems are just stupid unessesary and clunky, and really just do favours for war machines.
The magic system is ruined by the doom spells (which reared its ugly head at the end of 7th) and the uselessness of MR.
I personally hate the loss of concentration rule but thats a personal beef.
I wonder how any normal person survives in the warhammer world when 75% of the landscape tends to eat people.

Scythe
17-01-2011, 11:08
These are just examples of why Stone Throwers being laser guided is a problem. The fact that only two Stone Throwers (O&G and Cygor examples) uses the BRB rules and can't be easily adjusted (i.e. as compared to the Dwarf version) just further supports the argument that this rule change was a gigantic goof-up.

No, the rule change was fine, as base stone throwers are quite reasonable. The mistake lies in the unerrata'd FAQs of each army with a special stone thrower.

Poseidal
17-01-2011, 11:24
One problem is the rulebook size. While it's nice to read and have, it's larger than the last book which in itself wasn't too light itself. All that weight and bulk adds up. The alternative is looking at 2nd hand sites or buying the Island of Blood for the small book, which has armies I don't use. Basically a lot of hassle I don't need.

On the actual game, magic and the large block infantry (hordes, steadfast) are my main complaints. I don't like the new MR too.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
17-01-2011, 11:36
There isn't anything wrong with 8th. Its a great game :)

- I second Poseidal on the book size though, I was dumb enough to get the collectors ed. :)

silks
17-01-2011, 12:04
My main problem with 8th isn't the rules.
The problem I have is that I like buying lots of different minis - and painting them then using them.
I much preferred being able to buy a box or two of each unit in the army in 7th than having to buy 10 of the same thing in 8th.

For example I recently decided to start Vampire Counts and have bought lots of different Core types - only to read on here I want to be using 90 ghouls or Skeletons if I want to be competitive - which means either spending £100+ on ghouls or buying the Mantic ones that I don't like. I certainly don't want to paint 90 of the same thing and I'm now left with boxes of 'useless' troops that have sapped my enthusiasm for the army.

a18no
17-01-2011, 14:23
8th is fantastic because it's a new game, and I like that. 7th edition was nothing more than a 6.5th. And I hate that. I don't care about the rules, the rules are the rules. But when you make a new edition, make it NEW. That way I'll play fig I haven't for past 5 years. I'll want to play new army, new unit formation, new strategy, etc.

Chess can't improved, your opponent don't care if you want your knight to move like an J insted of an L. The rule is the rule, you don't like it play checkers. At least with warhammer, you don't have to always play with the same 16 pieces.

I don't understand why peoples whynes about randomness?? Real world war is always full of impredictables events. Random dice add that to a fantastic simulation.

Conclusion: 8th is fantastic because it made everything you though was good bad. You HAVE to change your army. The people who don't like 8th are in majority (not all) peoples who are playing 7th edition list and want them to work, they are making comp to nerf 8th rule, they want back what they lost. STOP THAT. Try new list, new formation, make some proxy first, and play. After that you'll like 8th edition.

For steadfast: it's good, but it won't win games for you. Going for the draw is not winning. The players who are overusing steadfast will change soon or later. Just be patient. 50 guys in 5*10 won't win you games, but trust me, 10*5 WILL win!!

Finally: have fun!!! It's just a game!

Gormereth, the Fearmonger
18-01-2011, 01:39
To me 8th feels likes GW didn't want to play test so they took 7th, swung some rules to the opposite end of the spectrum, and are now waiting for some player to combine the two in the perfect balance that fixes all the problems in both systems.

the issue I find most noticable in 8th is that it is difficult or impossible to deny things to your opponent:
-Marchblocking, baiting, pursuit, charging because of frenzy, etc are all stopped by passing a Ld check. So long as the hardest hitting unit the enemy has is within 12" of a BSB there is almost no way to stop their forward momentum short of impassible terrain.
-step up means you can rarely deny attacks back
-TLOS means units vulnerable to warmachines (e.g. Giants vs a Cannon) are almost impossible to hide

and so forth,

the basic effect is that when you get a challenging match up, typically the unit getting the raw end of the stick not only has to roll well but their opponent also needs to roll poorly on all the right rolls to win. If you don't field the "correct" units it can feel as unforgiving and frustratingly difficult as trying to stop the Engine of the Gods with Strength 3 bow fire.

Lord Solar Plexus
18-01-2011, 09:25
What is wrong? Well, just take a look at the cover! Rockethammer! ;)

Zilverug
18-01-2011, 10:11
I feel 8th is better than 7th, but there are some rules I'd prefer to keep from previous versions:
* The double 1 miscast, double 6 irresistable.
* Line of sight rules.
I'll be trying to get these two as house rules next Friday.

DeathlessDraich
18-01-2011, 15:42
Four main reasons why many players like 8th ed:

1) The boost it has given to their army or their fav army

2) Greater equitability than 7th between armies

3) Greater randomness/chance and also better chances of winning for novices

4) Scenarios and magic items


I belong to the small group that plays with all or almost all armies - hence (1) & (2) don't apply.

I also seek to improve my manoeuvring and tactical skills i.e. I prefer Warhammer to be more akin to Chess than Poker or Snap! - so (3) is a huge detriment and disappointment.

Too many Interesting manouevres, setting up traps have gone for my liking plus the far far greater chance of a game winning single dice roll.

I can almost hear players shout "Bingo!" when that happens - I would love to introduce these players to my grandma who is available and loves younger men! Hear that worshippers of the Purple Sun!! :D

The bearded one
18-01-2011, 16:13
My number 5)

5) models dying in actual combat, rather than overrun moves after a monster, or unit of 5-10 models charged you.

IcedCrow
18-01-2011, 16:34
My number 5)

5) models dying in actual combat, rather than overrun moves after a monster, or unit of 5-10 models charged you.

Yes THIS i like. One thing that always drove me crazy about warhammer, casualties were seemingly a minor issue compared with other things.

Casualty count was rarely even half of the total models removed from the board.

Lord Inquisitor
18-01-2011, 16:39
Overall, I'd just like to get rid if IR. I just feel it's a relic. Get rid of it and a lot of things fall into line.

Heh, I think you might be on to something with this. I think I agree. Take out IF (and auto dispel) and the game would probably be better.

The bearded one
18-01-2011, 16:41
Or make IF dispellable with an IF dispell roll?

IcedCrow
18-01-2011, 16:42
Yeah. IF Dispel only on an IF dispel roll.

Auto dispel (dispel scrolls) have always annoyed me as well. It's just that they've been in the game for as long as I have that you get used to it.

Gaargod
18-01-2011, 16:58
A few things irritate me, aside from the givens (Uber-spells with no downside for lots of dice, TLoS, laser-guided war machines).

I actually dislike the changes to the movement phase and charging. I will admit, its a LOT simpler and, to be fair, the 7th ed way did need to be changed as it could be abused. I was the one of the people who did the abusing! Know distances well enough and you could sit just of charge range, or manipulate the angles etc to make charges impossible.
However, they've now gone too far the other way. There's a still a few gems in there (for example, declaring charge reactions instantly, so you can set up situations where enemies can't flee for fear of a cheap unit then running them down), but overall with the highly random charges, its quite irritating.

Steadfast is also way too good. If you count aggregate ranks (and monsters = rank) and could disrupt it by flank charges, then it'd be a lot better. Also not fond of Inspiring Presence working for steadfast (although characters in the unit is fine).

Wacko terrain?

A few oddities. Terror is now fairly rubbish, only working on the charge with BSB-super LD environment and the VP system badly needs a couple of adjustments.

Two_Hands
18-01-2011, 19:28
Yes THIS i like. One thing that always drove me crazy about warhammer, casualties were seemingly a minor issue compared with other things.

Casualty count was rarely even half of the total models removed from the board.

Different strokes I guess, but being a hoplology buff this was always something I liked. In pre-modern warfare most casualties generally happened during the rout, it was one of the main reasons to have light cavalry (to run down fleeing enemies).

IcedCrow
18-01-2011, 19:34
I guess it's more a gamey thing. I prefer the more gamey aspect where your models actually get to fight. But yeah it's different strokes. I'd play regardless.

kyussinchains
18-01-2011, 20:04
the Mantic ones that I don't like.

seriously? I've not met anyone yet who doesn't think the Mantic ghouls crap on the citadel ones from a great height.....

my beefs with 8 edition are: (in no particular order)

1) Fear Being severely reduced in potency.... most armies had enough anti-fear stuff to prevent autobreaking from dominatiing the game, but not removing it completely... I felt that 6th/7th edition fear was a perfectly good rule

2) Mystical terrain.... utterly unncessary..... I can understand it for scenarios, but not in every bloody game.....

3) BSBs allowing all Ld tests to be re-rolled.... I breathed a sigh of relief when they dropped this for 6th edition..... now it's back and it ruins so many spells, magic items and special rules... a LD test effect is never great, and the re-roll from the BSB just makes things worse

4) True line of sight.... I know lots of people who ignore this (including me) it works well in 40k for cityfights and scattered troops, but it's just a bunch of arguments waiting to happen

There are more gripes out there, the system is far from perfect, but it's not really any worse than 7th edition, just different. I've gotten used to the idea that GW only cares about making money by selling miniatures, the games are just bolted-on excuses to rehash everything and make more money.....

a18no
18-01-2011, 20:21
The only problem with magic is that the miscast table is to weak. Just make even worst than now would have probably solve all the problems

I can't understand those comments Gormereth:



the issue I find most noticable in 8th is that it is difficult or impossible to deny things to your opponent:
-Marchblocking, baiting, pursuit, charging because of frenzy, etc are all stopped by passing a Ld check. So long as the hardest hitting unit the enemy has is within 12" of a BSB there is almost no way to stop their forward momentum short of impassible terrain.


Yes: My 50pts unit is stopping your 600pts to march so I can magic/shoot you to death... yeah it was very good in 7th... :shifty:



-step up means you can rarely deny attacks back


I kill your 5 front guys with my 5 knight/dragon rider/hydra/etc., no strike back, so I win... your 50 guys behind are just demorilised by the dead of less than 10% of them,:shifty:



-TLOS means units vulnerable to warmachines (e.g. Giants vs a Cannon) are almost impossible to hide


True line of sight is probably the only "problem" in 8th, but I can see one more:

PLAYERS. The only big problem in 8th edition is players. Trying to find loophole since the book is new (some player are just going for clear rules, but it's not the majority.. I'm sad to say it). Playing super wacky list just for the fun of winning, instead of fielding a good fluff army. Buying/fielding figs that are "strong" or in unit of 20 and calling that an anchor... And being mad about a player who field 40 and call THAT an anchor...



the basic effect is that when you get a challenging match up, typically the unit getting the raw end of the stick not only has to roll well but their opponent also needs to roll poorly on all the right rolls to win. If you don't field the "correct" units it can feel as unforgiving and frustratingly difficult as trying to stop the Engine of the Gods with Strength 3 bow fire.

And it's the magic of 8th: you're throwing so much dices, that the average roll are more common than not. Let's face it: when 5 guys are fighting, with an average roll of plus or minus 1, it's still a 20% error factor... In 8th the error factor is less than 5%

Scythe
19-01-2011, 06:59
I also seek to improve my manoeuvring and tactical skills i.e. I prefer Warhammer to be more akin to Chess than Poker or Snap! - so (3) is a huge detriment and disappointment.


That's a very slippery slope you're on there. As any experienced poker player can tell you, novices in the poker game will lose. More randomness does not equal a less tactical game per definition. It might require a different set of skills though, like the ability to deal with bad rolls, and have multiple backup plans.

Trains_Get_Robbed
19-01-2011, 07:38
True Line of Sight is pretty lame.

The not being able to break steadfast when in the flank or rear of something makes little sense.

Fear and Terror do very little.

Miscasts could be more devastating, but more geared towards the caster.

There should be a Miscast for dispelling.

* I disagree with auto dispell, as you already have that in a dispell scroll, and also can throw as many dice as you want to drop the spell. WIth P.D capped at 6, I find myself and others very rarley actually get I.F with throwing six dice.

As a matter a fact, we often find that there are more D.D than P.D per army, thats when it becomes a joke as SOME armies rely on magic, while only one army really relies on dispelling magic.

Gormereth, the Fearmonger
20-01-2011, 03:37
I can't understand those comments Gormereth:

Yes: My 50pts unit is stopping your 600pts to march so I can magic/shoot you to death... yeah it was very good in 7th... :shifty:


I kill your 5 front guys with my 5 knight/dragon rider/hydra/etc., no strike back, so I win... your 50 guys behind are just demorilised by the dead of less than 10% of them,:shifty:


PLAYERS. The only big problem in 8th edition is players. Trying to find loophole since the book is new (some player are just going for clear rules, but it's not the majority.. I'm sad to say it). Playing super wacky list just for the fun of winning, instead of fielding a good fluff army. Buying/fielding figs that are "strong" or in unit of 20 and calling that an anchor... And being mad about a player who field 40 and call THAT an anchor...

Well, I can understand those comments

There is a certain inanity when a 50 pt model (I'm just going to guess a great eagle) can march block a unit that is enough points to be a death star, or one from my own experience where an alter kindred march blocked a slannesh giant because a chaos giant is clearly terrified of an elf that is hiding in the woods, moving branches, and going WWWWWWOOOOOOOOOHHHHH.

but the thing about that one model, that 50 pt eagle, is that you're opponent has a 600 pt unit coming your way so what do you do? In 8th you deal with this by having a more badass unit, or casting a buff that makes them more badass, or blasting/hexing them with at range with cannon/warmachines/super spells/etc. Although there are many combination it all sums up to being either "deal with them in close combat" or "blast them before they get to you". In 7th there was that 3rd option of delay & deny through marchblocking, baiting, terrain, etc. 50 pts of eagle (or what ever the army had) gave players another option to deal with troublesome units, even if just for a few turns depending on when you started the march block.

5 models killing 50...well 5 chosen or swordmasters yes, but I'm thinking of the "305", that spoof of 300 about the 5 spartans guarding the goat path that parodies the office. But when you charge 5 guys into the flank of a block of 50 (or even 20) in 8th what can they do? They don't cause disruption, they're fighting against their opponents static combat res, even if they win the enemy will be steadfast...and also they will probably take wounds adding yet another buffer to prevent them from even winning the combat. And against harder hitting units (2 attacks per model, GW, etc) 5 models can be wided out easily; so when you're against the ropes and you need a "miracle" against a more powerful unit now it's not just you have to roll well, but they have to roll poorly.

The basic concept I'm trying to go with is that fluff needs to give way to game mechanics every now and then sometimes a 50 pt eagle holding up a 600 pt block helps balance out play and sometime 5 grunts taking out a much larger unit needs to be at longs odd but not niegh-impossible.

Actually the only bit I don't understand is the part about the Players. People will do whatever they can; we have rules to tell people what they can't do in the game just like how in real life we're not all on the honour system...because it only take one person looking out for number1 to start getting ahead before everyone does it. People are inherently dinks, players acting like dinks is par for the course, and (although you don't have to be a dink yourself) counting on people to not act like dinks to balance out a game just doesn't work.

silashand
20-01-2011, 04:26
Different strokes I guess, but being a hoplology buff this was always something I liked. In pre-modern warfare most casualties generally happened during the rout, it was one of the main reasons to have light cavalry (to run down fleeing enemies).

Amen. Too many players IMO have little to no idea how combat actually worked in such times, thus they get their panties in a wad because their "game" didn't allow them to kill as much as they thought their uber heroes should. In that light the new WFB does not resemble actual medieval warfare in the slightest.

Cheers, Gary

TheYoungin
20-01-2011, 06:39
I love it its all just great. [ =

Scythe
20-01-2011, 08:54
Amen. Too many players IMO have little to no idea how combat actually worked in such times, thus they get their panties in a wad because their "game" didn't allow them to kill as much as they thought their uber heroes should. In that light the new WFB does not resemble actual medieval warfare in the slightest.

Cheers, Gary

Thing is, when I play warhammer fantasy, I am not really interested in a simulation of actual medieval warfare. If I was, I would be playing a historical game, not a fantasy game. I am quite happy with things actually dying in combat instead of 'heroically' fleeing the battlefield.

The bearded one
20-01-2011, 11:39
Amen. Too many players IMO have little to no idea how combat actually worked in such times, thus they get their panties in a wad because their "game" didn't allow them to kill as much as they thought their uber heroes should. In that light the new WFB does not resemble actual medieval warfare in the slightest.

Cheers, Gary

Dwarfs don't run away :D

I am perfectly aware of how medieval warfare would go. About as many enemies would get killed on the rout as during actual fighting and the focus of tactics would be to break your enemy. But that's boring during a wargame. You want to slaughter swathes of enemies. Not 5 and watch the other 25 wander off the tableedge.

MasterSparks
20-01-2011, 11:49
You want to slaughter swathes of enemies. Not 5 and watch the other 25 wander off the tableedge.

That would be much more true in a Harry Potter world where the miniatures would actually be duffing each other up, but in our static reality I'd be happy just having the most entertaining gameplay and let my imagination take care of the rest.

ewar
20-01-2011, 13:36
Amen. Too many players IMO have little to no idea how combat actually worked in such times, thus they get their panties in a wad because their "game" didn't allow them to kill as much as they thought their uber heroes should. In that light the new WFB does not resemble actual medieval warfare in the slightest.

Cheers, Gary

Why did you put game in inverted commas? It actually is a game! Like others have said, I'm not playing a game of elves, dragons and floating frogs because I want a simulation of Mesopotamian warfare.

Killing stuff in actual combat is fun, losing by 1 CR and having your virtually undamaged unit wiped out through an unlucky leadership test isn't. At least not for me.

IcedCrow
20-01-2011, 13:46
Well also the problem with only the front rank fighting is that it lends to MSU army builds and makes the point costs a little whacky.

Why am I paying 15 points for a chaos warrior when he isn't doing anything except for contributing to a rank bonus, the same as that 3 point goblin?

I was a history major and studied middle ages warfare. I also am a historical player and play games that simulate middle ages and classic ages combat. It's not that I have no idea how these combats worked, its that for Warhammer I prefer most of the models in my unit to be able to fight, not just the front rank when the other ranks just sit there and do nothing but contribute to combat resolution.

silashand
20-01-2011, 20:25
Dwarfs don't run away :D

Unfortunately, mine have. My dice hate me... :cries:


I am perfectly aware of how medieval warfare would go. About as many enemies would get killed on the rout as during actual fighting and the focus of tactics would be to break your enemy. But that's boring during a wargame. You want to slaughter swathes of enemies. Not 5 and watch the other 25 wander off the table edge.

The problem with 8th is that while sure, you get to roll boatloads of dice and potentially kill lots of models, you have done so at the expense of any real tactics now. With Steadfast working the way it does and magic being so overbearing it rewards those boring tactics and you have little else to add an enjoyable intellectual challenge to the game. In short, in exchange for more models being able to fight, now that's pretty much all they do. If that does it for you then great, but it's not what I want out of a WARgame. JMO though...

8th edition had a lot of potential, but thanks to five or six game killing rules that made it into the final book IMO it is the worst edition I have ever played, bar none.

Cheers, Gary

Sygerrik
20-01-2011, 20:35
The biggest problem with 8th is that it's a new edition, and gamers beat out old people as the demographic most toxically allergic to change.

DeathlessDraich
20-01-2011, 22:38
That's a very slippery slope you're on there. As any experienced poker player can tell you, novices in the poker game will lose. More randomness does not equal a less tactical game per definition. It might require a different set of skills though, like the ability to deal with bad rolls, and have multiple backup plans.

Yes, you're right skill is also needed in a game of poker and it is a different set of skills.
Warhammer lies in between the pure calculation of chess and pure chance of a lottery but more a game of skill than chance in previous editions.
8th ed has shifted it more towards chance, wouldn't you agree?

BTW - I played No Limit Texas Hold 'em for real money a few years ago (online mainly for very small stakes) - the basic skills aren't as difficult to master as the discipline needed to accept losses. Whilst the skilled knowledgeable player will win on average, it is also very possible that the wild (annoying) player (since you play poker you'll know what I mean) will win on a lucky streak.
Even Gus Hanson will lose to a lucky amateur :)

Scythe
21-01-2011, 07:14
Yes, you're right skill is also needed in a game of poker and it is a different set of skills.
Warhammer lies in between the pure calculation of chess and pure chance of a lottery but more a game of skill than chance in previous editions.
8th ed has shifted it more towards chance, wouldn't you agree?

In general, yes (though it should be mentioned that some elements actually became more reliable, with elements like steadfast, step up and the BSB reroll for everything). It is a bit unfair though to present this on a scale ranging from no chance element at all (chess, though you could argue that the color advantage can be random) to a completely random lottery, as the personal fun curve of people doesn't have to follow this line.


BTW - I played No Limit Texas Hold 'em for real money a few years ago (online mainly for very small stakes) - the basic skills aren't as difficult to master as the discipline needed to accept losses. Whilst the skilled knowledgeable player will win on average, it is also very possible that the wild (annoying) player (since you play poker you'll know what I mean) will win on a lucky streak.
Even Gus Hanson will lose to a lucky amateur :)

True, and it is part of the game. But I think part of the charm of many games is just the random elements you don't control. The ability to deal with bad rolls, have something to blame in case everything doesn't go as planned, and struggle victory from the jaws of defeaut despite lady luck not working in your favour. Unpredictability is what makes a lot of games exiting.

IcedCrow
21-01-2011, 14:01
While we do tout skill in these games, I have to question the exact degree of skill which we seem to indicate is neccessary.

I remember starting 40k in 3rd edition and remember an Eldar player telling me that the Eldar army required a lot of skill to play properly. His army included 12-15 star cannons and a couple psykers to cast guide on them to allow re-rolls.

That's not skill guy. That's realizing that most 40k armies are 3+ armor saves and then loading up on weapons that negate 3+ armor saves. Common sense absolutely. Skill? No. No I don't think that takes much skill to figure that out. I dare say a young child could figure that one out.

Over a decade in the tournament/league scene I heard people tout skill but really what most of them were doing is going online and finding an obscene build and then running with it. Many (not all) of those people who touted skill also coincidently happened to run the top tier armies *all the time*.

Skill? Sure there's some skill. No question. But really what a lot of people do are pick which armies are the naturally strongest based on the current power curves and then go with that.

That's not much of a skill to me.

Now then there are players that seem to be able to whip up on anyone with any army regardless of the strength of the army book in general. That's skill to me (or a ton of luck, or maybe both)

How many of those guys who claimed skill was so important and how awesome they were ran weaker tier armies? How many won with them? In my experience, not many at all. I have only met a handful of people with real "skill" since the late 90s in tournaments and I use that measure on those people who could take an army like say Ogre Kingdoms or Tomb Kings today and whip up on your demons with them.

There are a handful of things you need to be good at in WH to be good at the game. Once you learn those things, the rest is just learning patterns and combinations of units that do certain things.

There is a need for some skill, but it's not nearly as much IMO as some people make it out to be.

I've won my share of tournaments. Placed high in RTTs and even a GT. I may have some "skill" but I confess I don't see it as such. A lot of my good games that placed me high in these tournaments had a lot of luck on my part or bad luck on my opponent at the right time.

And I admit my Tomb King force which won me two tournaments and placed high in several leagues back in the beginning of their book through a couple years, I could not do much with today because I lack real skill to do so, though I know a guy who still runs TOmb Kings and still kicks peoples' armies around the table even today.

The random elements being added, I'm both good and bad with. I don't like random charges because to me that does take some of the strategy (not I'm not using the word skill here) out of the game to me because there is now this random movement that means I may or may not hit my target on a charge (as opposed to knowing my knights always charge 14" and in open terrain will hit on 14" or if I charge through rough ground I lose some of it... now it's just that they charge X" + random Y which is hard to plan for)

Will I get over it? Sure. It won't kill the game for me. I just personally don't like it much.

What I do like is that infantry now has a more dominant role in the game (as to me it should IMO) instead of it being all cavalry based or MSU based. Again those are "skills" in learning how to game the system. That's pretty much evident in most if not all games to some degree (gaming the system).

kaffis
21-01-2011, 18:24
Just to weigh in on chance vs. skill...

Tic Tac Toe is a purely skill and tactics game.

And yet? Unless one player is terrible, it is predictable and boring, because it's solved.

A random element prevents this.

Insane Courage
22-01-2011, 00:12
I actually like 8th ed, only complaint is the unstopable nuke spell. If you look at getting 6 power dice in a magic phase is very statistically favorable. Combine that with a nuke spell, throwing 6 dice and a power stone= 1 in 46,656 of not casting irresistable force. And if your going against VC with MOBA it gets pretty rediculous they shouldn't have made that so easy.

Trikk
22-01-2011, 21:12
I've read a lot of things about people bashing 8th ed. I got the book last week. It seems solid. Solid enough that I'm excited to play it again after a long hiatus from the game.

What are people hating on exactly?

For me it's mostly just two things: army books and lores. The first will get better over time, but it's doubtful the second will.

Not releasing new army books with a new edition is just a stupid practice for a lot of reasons:

- The old army books are of course not balanced for this edition and thus the games suffer from horrible balance until they release new material. Older books give options that are worthless now and lack options that are sometimes vital. Some restrictions are just annoying to deal with.

- They cannot possibly balance the new books unless they are developing them simultaneously. There will be power creep, like in every wargame/RPG/cardgame that does progressive releases. Then there's the opposite risk, that because they lack experience designing for 8th the first few books will be too powerful and later books will be tuned down.

- Why would anyone buy an army book right now? It's better to have my money now than in months or a year from now. I think a lot of people would settle for some small booklet that just fixes the glaring problems certain armies face and maybe adjusts the costs and such of a few things, instead of just having to rely on erratas and FAQs.

Then we have the different BRB lores. Even at a glance they aren't balanced. Lore of Life is a good example: Throne of Vines is an 8+ cast RiP spell that lets you ignore miscasts on a 2+, improves Earth Blood, improves Awakening of the Wood, improves Flesh to Stone, improves Regrowth, improves Shield of Thorns and lets you heal one wound on any model within 12".

That's a spell that requires on average 2 dice to cast for a level 1 wizard and stays in play for the rest of the game unless your opponent sacrifices dice to get rid of it. For a Loremaster or anyone else that knows the whole Lore, it has 7 positive effects.

It would be one thing if they designed the different lores to have different purposes, instead of randomly giving some lores the capability to do everything. The lore attributes are just silly. Again, refer to Lore of Life for a lore attribute that rivals actual spells from other lores and suits pretty much any army or tactic.

Sadly, we are pretty much stuck with these horribly imbalanced lores. That's what I take from seeing the battle magic cards. Sure, you can agree with your opponent that neither of you will take any game-ending spells, but it's something you shouldn't have to do in a professionally designed game.

Stronginthearm
23-01-2011, 08:39
I Think what we've boiled it down to is the magic and the hordes, apparently the hordes are too bad you don't see OnG taking everybody by storm, (we'd like to but its not really happening) and magic, well I don't really like magic that much I think the miscast should be harsher, if your mage can wipe out a 600 point unit I want to see him explode and take everyone around him out more often, I want to know that your army is proud of the mage in teh same way that parents are proud of a bombspecialist (Ie "That's nice son, go play over in canada)

I've been awake for a really long time so if this sounds wierd I apologize

Trikk
23-01-2011, 08:53
I Think what we've boiled it down to is the magic and the hordes, apparently the hordes are too bad you don't see OnG taking everybody by storm, (we'd like to but its not really happening) and magic, well I don't really like magic that much I think the miscast should be harsher, if your mage can wipe out a 600 point unit I want to see him explode and take everyone around him out more often, I want to know that your army is proud of the mage in teh same way that parents are proud of a bombspecialist (Ie "That's nice son, go play over in canada)

I've been awake for a really long time so if this sounds wierd I apologize

It was formulated very strangely, but I basically agree. I have no problem with hordes and miscasts are definitely too weak most of the time. You can even use miscast to your own advantage. That should imo never be the case. The basic magic system is decent but there are so many specifics that ruin it.

Brother Ranz
23-01-2011, 16:32
If someone is looking forward to 8th or playing it happily, I would not try to change their mind. If someone is unhappy with the game, then it is appropriate to tell them why some of us have moved on.

mistrmoon
24-01-2011, 04:54
That would be much more true in a Harry Potter world where the miniatures would actually be duffing each other up, but in our static reality I'd be happy just having the most entertaining gameplay and let my imagination take care of the rest.

holy.crap.

This would be the best thing ever. You just blew my mind.

Crovax20
24-01-2011, 11:03
There are a couple of problems I have with 8th edition, of which one is definitely a rules gripe the other is more of a wallet gripe.

Magic, I did not like it in 7th edition and while 8th edition has curb stomped the 19 powerdice stuff, it has added insane game winning spells. When you are playing a 1250 point game and a level 1 wizard is throwing all its powerdice in a vain attempt to transform into a flipping dragon, you know something is wrong. I would much rather have had spells that support your army in the way of buffs and debuffs then these insane damage spells.

Steadfast, which is a nice boost to horde armies... but my wallet is crying as I love playing Empire and Goblins, which means I am pretty much fielding at least 40-45 statetroops (including detachment)/goblins per unit. End result is that I'm taking a much longer time to set up my army and putting it all back in the carry case.

All my other gripes are simply with those damned armybooks and special rules. I just don't find playing against Lizardmen, Vampire Counts, Dark elves, High elves fun. They either are near impregnable in the psychology field especially with batttle standard bearers or they have severely undercosted units (I'm looking at you dark elves). When you pay 20 points for a NIGHT GOBLIN command group, while he pays 15 for his spearmen command group you just crinch.

Its a good thing there are still armies that are fun to play with and against else I would have sold my empire and goblin armies.

Ultimate Life Form
24-01-2011, 11:39
The old army books are of course not balanced for this edition and thus the games suffer from horrible balance until they release new material.

Some people may argue that it was the release of certain new materials that utterly ruined the game balance in 7th.


They cannot possibly balance the new books unless they are developing them simultaneously. There will be power creep, like in every wargame/RPG/cardgame that does progressive releases.


Well, you could develop them simultaneously and then release them progressively... sounds like a good idea right? To us maybe, but GW has entirely different interests than us poor gamers, which means the unfortunate position we're in is purposely induced in order to fit the company's desires, not ours. These include:

The need to plan everything ahead for a couple of years is omitted, giving GW leeway to 'experiment' with the game, much to our dismay. The WarSeer GW fanboi group will say that this is a necessary artistic area of freedom in order to further evolve and refine the game 'on the go'. I'll expose it as what it is and tell it a cheap excuse to crook the scales and throw in a few extra units to cash in on.

Game balance is neither a concern nor a goal; in fact just the opposite. The internal cycle means that useless units become useful and vice versain order to boost sales. On the external side this means that the newest army always tries to outshine all others in some way in an attempt to appeal to a broad audience. No one wants a bad army, so the latest army will always be the best. Even the sucky Beastmen got their share of unique stuff (they now distinguish themselves as the official army for people who want to field insane amounts of ridiculous gigantic monstrosities). I'm really looking forward to the O&G release; the book can only get better.


Why would anyone buy an army book right now? It's better to have my money now than in months or a year from now. I think a lot of people would settle for some small booklet that just fixes the glaring problems certain armies face and maybe adjusts the costs and such of a few things, instead of just having to rely on erratas and FAQs.


I would buy a new Skaven army book this very day if it meant I'd finally get a comprehensible 8th Ed version without having to rely on a few dozen FAQs.

Brother Ranz
24-01-2011, 12:59
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272838

I was talking threads, not how people in Colorado feel about it, of which I had no idea until your post. That thread has almost as many negative as positive posts (as far as I can remember, don't bother to count ;) ), but the poll show that 76% think 8th is better than 7th.


7th Edition already lowered the bar to such a point that anything would have been an improvement. That does not make 8th good. It's like being the most gentle murderer.

Brother Ranz
24-01-2011, 13:02
Warmachine and Hordes release codecies over time as well, but they are developed and playtested together. They released MKII (which actually WAS an improvement over the first edition) in May(?) and have released 11 quality faction books since. If someone comes up with a list thst is too tough, Privateer will assume full responsiblity rather than shift the blame to the "Cheesy" player(s).

Daniel36
24-01-2011, 13:03
I love 8th! I can finally win now!

Scythe
24-01-2011, 13:26
I would much rather have had spells that support your army in the way of buffs and debuffs then these insane damage spells.


I don't know, the basic magic lores contain a lot more buffs/debuffs then they have nuke spells. A lot of them (starting with Lore of Shadow) are quite popular as well.

Crovax20
24-01-2011, 14:34
I don't know, the basic magic lores contain a lot more buffs/debuffs then they have nuke spells. A lot of them (starting with Lore of Shadow) are quite popular as well.

Aye, that is true. But I much rather would have seen all lores be built around buffs and debuffs. Right now the destructive magic uber spells feel like they have too much impact.

WarmbloodedLizard
24-01-2011, 15:35
Warmachine and Hordes release codecies over time as well, but they are developed and playtested together. They released MKII (which actually WAS an improvement over the first edition) in May(?) and have released 11 quality faction books since. If someone comes up with a list thst is too tough, Privateer will assume full responsiblity rather than shift the blame to the "Cheesy" player(s).

that's how any serious company should do it. anything else is just lazy, sloppy and amateurish. To expect people to pay for it also makes it in incident of blood-sucking perpetrated by a greedy vampire company.

sadly, it will still take some years at least for the rules of the market to set things straight.

IcedCrow
24-01-2011, 15:56
As far as I know the game has been developed like this for at least the past fifteen years...

theorox
24-01-2011, 16:23
holy.crap.

This would be the best thing ever. You just blew my mind.

Buying new minis after every game would be the best thing ever? :D

Theo

Ronin[XiC]
24-01-2011, 18:39
You could just use magic to revive the dead ;)

Scythe
25-01-2011, 06:52
that's how any serious company should do it. anything else is just lazy, sloppy and amateurish.

Or a good profit based marketing strategy. Like it or not, but codex creep sells models. That it might not be in the best interest of veteran gamers is another mather, but those aren't the main target audience of GW products anyway.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
25-01-2011, 08:45
Aye, that is true. But I much rather would have seen all lores be built around buffs and debuffs. Right now the destructive magic uber spells feel like they have too much impact.

Those little Hexes and Augments actually have an equally destructive effect compared to "Ze Uber Spellz". Combat will generally be won by the magically enhanced and entire units broken and run down.

Sure the Purple Sun can cause a lot of damage to certain armies, but so can stone throwers, hellcannons, etc. And games dominated by either is about as tactically interesting as being run over by a few units of Khorne knights or Ld/Terror-Bombed by the legions of Slaanesh.

If you have trouble with your local metagame, then discuss and adapt. If tournaments are dominated by a playstyle, you don't like, then stop attending and set up your own under your house rules.

-

Compared to 7th, 8th is infinitely more diverse and challenging. We're seeing more and more different units on the table, and apart from a few armies, most are back in the game.

My only gripes with 8th is TLoS and the rigid skirmish rules. And then of course a couple of poorly FAQed things and incompatibility of individual army books.

Crovax20
25-01-2011, 10:19
I have problems with broken armybooks and people getting number 6 spell and throwing all their dice at it to try and get the double 6 with their level 1-2 mage. If it wasn't for my cannon's ability to snipe at those arses who put their wizards behind their units and then claim LOS to everything I would hate magic even more (night goblins are trickier to snipe chars with unless you get foot of gork).

The Magic system just annoys me as it seems to have turned into throw as many dice as you can to get your uber spell off and hope the miscast table is sweet to you.

broken army books makes me stop playing against certain armies because I don't want to be paying 20 points for a night goblin command group when a dark elf player pays 15 points for his spearmen command group. Or having to watch the vampire count player raise ghouls every damned turn above starting numbers. This has improved somewhat in 8th with them having to risk 1 dice or throw 2 dice at it, but it still mind boggling why someone thought it would be a good idea to let them effectively raise more points.

IcedCrow
25-01-2011, 13:06
That seems to be how magic was in 6th edition too IIRC. At least for me. And VC have always been able to raise more points since 5th edition at the very least =)

Winterfell
25-01-2011, 13:18
The only real issue I have with 8th Edition is the seemingly abusable mega-spells that can wipe out half an army in one go. That, plus Teclis/Kairos lists.

The general game mechanic, however, is much better and more rounded than previous editions. I am enjoying it quite a lot so far. The armies tend to be so much more evenly balanced compared to the MASSIVE gap in relative power between some (Daemons, Dark Elves, etc) and others (Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins, etc) there was in 7th edition.

Some armies remain utterly hopeless, though - Wood Elves, Tomb Kings and Ogres are still pretty poor, IMHO.

Just curious but doesnt this complaint balance out the complaint that 8th is all about who has the biggest infantry block?

Yes you might have taken a 40 model unit to my two 20 model unit but if I blast you then I can even the odds if Im lucky?

New to WFB though so Im not sure.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
25-01-2011, 15:44
Exactly Winterfell.

8th favor big blocks for fighting, and then it has some deterrents for using big blocks, such as effective stone throwers and spells :)

My guess is that the biggest complaints about the uber spells come from those who rely on ginormous death stars :p

Crovax20
25-01-2011, 17:00
Because 50 night goblins is a ginormous death star.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
25-01-2011, 18:03
Because 50 night goblins is a ginormous death star.

It really shouldn't be a problem to lose half a Unit of gobbos for any competent O&G player :p

Kal Taron
25-01-2011, 18:18
Compared to 7th, 8th is infinitely more diverse and challenging. We're seeing more and more different units on the table, and apart from a few armies, most are back in the game.
Like the very diverse competitive WE builds... *puke*


My only gripes with 8th is TLoS and the rigid skirmish rules. And then of course a couple of poorly FAQed things and incompatibility of individual army books.
Some of my main complaints as well. But then I'd add charging, terrain and magic.

Jind_Singh
25-01-2011, 18:46
There was a 2000pt Tournament at our GW store on the weekend.

22 Players turned up with armies, 11 gaming tables.

Tell me what's wrong with 8tth ed?

Sure there are PLENTY of rules that are lame, or not thought out well, but the same could be said of some 7th ed rules.

Sure the game is COMPLETELY different to 7th Ed, which was dying as the rules were being broken by new army books.

But there is nothing actually wrong with 8th edition as a system overall. The game plays well, the games are much more memorable than the previous edition, and once you get over the disgust of playing our beloved game in a new way ITS JUST AS CHALLENGING to win against good players as it always was.

If anything it's harder to beat an opponent the way 7th did - rule abuse is not as easy to pull off.

And quite frankly it's amazing that armies look like armies now - I always wanted to use big bad looking blocks but you effectively could never really put more than 30 models into a unit in 7th - it was a waste of points. Now you can reach units with a 100 models if you so wanted, the more the merrier!

The main gripe with 8th, for the most part, is most of the rules are looked at in isolation for when venting hate at them - steadfast for e.g. - yes, it's a solid rule that can make certain armies sit there all day long - but thanks to the massive increase in terrain in the game a good player knows that hordes are their own enemy!

Fight a unit of 50 Goblins, for e.g. were part of that unit is touching a terrain piece and guess what? That unit is going to be in deep trouble as it's going to break and by run down!

Magic - megadeath spells are the norm, but in a normal game how often does the magic phase issue crippling spells? Maybe out of 6 player magic turns maybe twice? If anything Magic can make for crazy games as sometimes we rely on a certain spell at a certain time - but the dice Gods don't care for our whims and there are many times I've seen my winds of magic either roll low, or the six dice roll nothing but 1s, 2s, and 3s.

Crazy combos are also bemoaned, cupped hands, etc, but you know what - same old crap in 7th ed. Game systems like WFB will always be open for abuse, there will always be units/upgrades which are just too good and under priced, and there will always be players who leap to them - they have the self control of Augustus Gloop inside Willy Wonka's chocolate factory! That is not an issue with 8th ed, it's an issue we've had since the game was brought out decades ago - some players can be right bum holes!

7th ed was the ed I came back to the hobby after a long break - and I loved it. LOVED IT. Playing WFB every Tuesday was the highlight of my week, we had a good crowd, solid challenges, and when 8th first came out we were all very excited.

Then after about a month the honeymoon had died, most of the regulars moved on to other games as WFB wasn't for them, they moaned about the changes - and they went to Warmachine/Hordes.

But we have a new bunch of regulars, infact way more than before, and for those of us old timers who stuck with the new edition have learned that there is beauty in the new game, satisfaction in the new game, and we accept it's many faults.

But the players who became disenchanted by the new ed will always be so - if you don't like it, you don't like it - your not coming back.

But to new players, like the OP, don't worry too much about what your hearing on the forums, they are posted mostly by the old Gentlemans club - don't be put off by their grumblings.

8th ed is a fine edition to play, it's a brand new way of playing an old game - and of course it's going to have flaws! Play it anyway, have fun with it, and see what 9th ed refinements do for the game.

But in the meantime you may as well enjoy the next 6 years before we're blessed with another edition!

Jind Singh out!

Lord of Divine Slaughter
25-01-2011, 19:07
Like the very diverse competitive WE builds... *puke*

I agree, woodies was hit bad in this way. We used to have a very good internal balance, where all our units were worth taking, but this change has nothing to do with the basic rules, it just means that WE needs an update more than others - just like the Ogres suffered through the entire 7th ed.


Some of my main complaints as well. But then I'd add charging, terrain and magic.

Really? I like that you are now able to fail a charge - can't remember a single instance when that happened in 7th. except when the opposing unit chose to Flee. Charge distances may seem a bit extreme, but they need to be with the protracted combats of 8th. I love how terrain actually got integrated into the game, instead of just being hills and assorted stuff that people avoided. Magic might not be perfect, but its a lot better than the all or nothing approach of 7th. Now you can actually bring a single lvl 2 and hope for it to accomplish something instead of just lugging scrolls around.

yabbadabba
25-01-2011, 21:33
Just curious but doesnt this complaint balance out the complaint that 8th is all about who has the biggest infantry block? There is a subtle synergy to the game that many aren't realising yet mate. I think 8th might have closest to removing the uber-death-one-turn-one-trick-pony armies.

IcedCrow
25-01-2011, 22:18
I like that armies are looking like armies too and not just small units of death machines and screens =)

CaptScott
26-01-2011, 00:38
8th edition summary:

101 things that are great
1or 2 things that aren't (but we can live with them)

Kal Taron
26-01-2011, 08:59
8th edition summary:

101 things that are bad
1or 2 things that aren't (but aren't worth it)

Shield of Freedom
26-01-2011, 12:21
8th edition summary:

101 things that are bad
1or 2 things that aren't (but aren't worth it)


Really? So 90% of the book is bad?

You do realize that about 50% of it is still 7th edition right? That means you didn't like 7th either huh? I guess there's no pleasing some people..

To the OP... 8th edition? Best edition so far. I've been playing since 4th, I'm 31 years old, and I'm not afraid of change when it happens.

Most nay-sayers' problems with 8th happen because they got used to playing (read: winning) a certain way and don't like the fact that they have to try something new, or that thier army works in a different way requiring a new strategy. Basically... whiners... who wouldn't be happy with anything GW puts out but still spend 100s of dollars every year on it.

IcedCrow
26-01-2011, 13:24
Really? So 90% of the book is bad?

You do realize that about 50% of it is still 7th edition right? That means you didn't like 7th either huh? I guess there's no pleasing some people..

To the OP... 8th edition? Best edition so far. I've been playing since 4th, I'm 31 years old, and I'm not afraid of change when it happens.

Most nay-sayers' problems with 8th happen because they got used to playing (read: winning) a certain way and don't like the fact that they have to try something new, or that thier army works in a different way requiring a new strategy. Basically... whiners... who wouldn't be happy with anything GW puts out but still spend 100s of dollars every year on it.

No doubt. Having winning strategies thrown out make a lot of people mad, especially those whose only point in playing is to win.

Change is good you're right. =)

WarmbloodedLizard
26-01-2011, 15:03
Or a good profit based marketing strategy. Like it or not, but codex creep sells models. That it might not be in the best interest of veteran gamers is another mather, but those aren't the main target audience of GW products anyway.

what GW does is not a good business strategy, it's just optimizig short term gains. they are losing customers and that doesn't sell models. codex creep only sells models when you look at a part of the picture.

TwoBitWriter
26-01-2011, 15:25
what GW does is not a good business strategy, it's just optimizig short term gains. they are losing customers and that doesn't sell models. codex creep only sells models when you look at a part of the picture.

Makes you wonder what will happen when they are bought out by someone like Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro.

I can see the pre-painted rubbery-plastic models now... :wtf:

IcedCrow
26-01-2011, 17:08
The *random* pre-painted rubbery plastic models.

scarletsquig
26-01-2011, 19:58
Yeah, if GW was owned by WotC you'd need to buy a sealed "monster box", and end up with 5 giants, 3 Cygors, 2 Manticores and a HippoGryph before you finally scored a box with the ultra-rare hellpit abomination in it.

TwoBitWriter
26-01-2011, 20:08
So by the time you finished putting together your Skaven army, you'd have a couple dozen Bretonnian Men-at-Arms, about fifty Goblins/Night Goblins, and a Dwarf/Empire war machine or two...

Tracking wounds with those little click-counters might be helpful though... :P

Edit: Wait, those are owned by WizKids...

Gormereth, the Fearmonger
27-01-2011, 03:33
Just curious but doesnt this complaint balance out the complaint that 8th is all about who has the biggest infantry block?

Yes you might have taken a 40 model unit to my two 20 model unit but if I blast you then I can even the odds if Im lucky?



The super spells are meant to counter people taking big units (it just seems to make sense that they were developed for that purpose when you look at the situation), but there are three critical flaws in using spells powerful enough to wipe out units as a...mechanic for balancing out another aspect of the game:

-not everyone can get these spells. There are a handful of armies that only have access to their own army specific lore and others that suffer from issues of getting the spells they need.

-casting spells is picking a target & rolling dice. It is a point & click proposition for the most part.

-It's not the situation of 40 troops are cut in half to face off 20 vs 20, it's the situation where 20 troops are cut in half to face off 40 vs 10. Too often the more powerful spells end up in the arsinel of the army that doesn't need them.


P.S. Jaime Lannister sends his reguards

Scythe
27-01-2011, 09:37
what GW does is not a good business strategy, it's just optimizig short term gains. they are losing customers and that doesn't sell models. codex creep only sells models when you look at a part of the picture.

An opinion, not a fact. Codex creep existed long before GW started to lose customers (which, a lot of people will argue, is more of a result of pricing strategy). And GW is still the biggest fish in the pond; most of their growth (3rd edition 40k / 6th edition fantasy) was in a period full of codex creep.

IcedCrow
27-01-2011, 13:23
An opinion, not a fact. Codex creep existed long before GW started to lose customers (which, a lot of people will argue, is more of a result of pricing strategy). And GW is still the biggest fish in the pond; most of their growth (3rd edition 40k / 6th edition fantasy) was in a period full of codex creep.

Truer words have not been spoken in a while! Exactly right.

Lord of Nonsensical Crap
30-01-2011, 04:53
IcedCrow,

First and foremost, I really enjoy all of your old batreps from when the LWGA website was still up, so I'd wholeheartedly welcome your return to Warhammer Fantasy. Especially if Captain Asskicker somehow returned...

As for 8th edition, I can say with all honesty that for the most part, its great. My first game of 8th blew me away with how fun it was. If I were to name the downsides of 8th ed, it would have to be:
-a more over-the-top magic phase and spell lores
-A slight nerfing to heavy cavalry, and any army that would have been cavalry or skirmish-heavy
-For some armies, the death of MSU tactics
-True line of sight takes a while to get used to

This, however, is outweighed by the increased viability of infantry, the expanded list of magic items, and the fact that it has, in my opinion, made armies like Ogre Kingdoms and Orcs & Goblins much more viable. That, and the random terrain and scenarios means more emphasis on tactics/adapting to the situation than army lists. I personally think you'll enjoy it.

Peegore
30-01-2011, 09:22
For me and my gaming group, not a lot is wrong with 8th ed in our eyes. It must have a certain something this edition, as one of our players just wholesale stopped playing 7th edition for a year or two to play World of Warcraft. Now he's probably one of the keenest gamers of the lot of us!

At the moment thought, the key leveller is in the use of scenarios and terrain. Armies designed to win any of the 6 random games in the book should in theory have a good, fair battle against each other. Armies that push towards one particular extreme style of play could easily get the scenario that scuppers them and be punished, and rightly so.

My friends and I have for a long time been advocates of scenarios to not only bring a bit of life and fun to a game, but also as a mechanic to use less extreme armies.

Yes it has niggles, all have been mentioned, but they're just niggles. I'd be interested to take a peek into the future and see how 8th ed played-out with a full set of up-to-date army books...

PS. I have been on the painful receiving end of an unstoppable Purple Sun, in the flanks of a unit of my ogres and ironguts with the general and BSB in it. Oh how I laughed as my troops dissipated into the ether... such a 'fun' pivotal, game-from-win-into-loss moment... :rolleyes::)

dinobot
01-02-2011, 22:08
Different strokes I guess, but being a hoplology buff this was always something I liked. In pre-modern warfare most casualties generally happened during the rout, it was one of the main reasons to have light cavalry (to run down fleeing enemies).

Not really... maybe in Europe during the age of muskets, but otherwise most casualities happened during battle. Also the victorious army could spend days hunting down the fleeing enemy, where as in warhammer they spend only a turn.

Voss
02-02-2011, 00:22
I would like to see your evidence for such a claim as I have not seen it. WFB has almost died where I live and in at least one other area I know of because of 8th edition.

It had died off completely in several places I'd been solely due to 7th edition. Not sure if 8th edition brought people back or not, but every edition has killed the game for some players.

For more recent comments- had to laugh at the D&D minis references and WotC/Hasbro buying GW- they killed the D&D Minis line a while back. Hasbro will probably ditch the D&D license entirely (either bury it or sell it) within the next year or two.

Zee
02-02-2011, 01:00
It's not too bad, I prefer 7th but mostly I think its personal opinion

But maybe if I start loosing games my opinion will change :chrome: