PDA

View Full Version : How 8th edition should have been done



Gromdal
13-02-2011, 11:04
After reading in the thread about how long before GW will drop their current idea of streamlining magic items and army books and the next couple of books will have alot more magic items I felt that it was time to once again speak my mind.

I said many many years ago that warhammer had huge issues and some of the things that needed fixing was: Making combats bloodier and less about ranks and pursuit ie not 0 deaths and then all knights flee and are run down etc. I also spoke about the importance about making the rules and the game faster and more simple. This was all the way back in 6th edition.

When 8th finally arrived GW had realised many things I said and my hopes for 8th was huge. Alot of good stuff were done but the ball was sadly dropped on a few areas risking the balance of the game. Magic comes to mind with a handful gamebreaking spells etc.

Now we got the orcs n goboo book and most of the old timers know that GW will revert to giving out magic items etc with later books failing to uphold balance.

Now here is what should have been done, in my opinion (and something you might see 7 years from now when GW realises yet might again introduce huge new issues in 10th edition):

8th edition rule book should have contained all magic items that all races had the same access to. This way they would all have been balanced yet a large selection would have been available for everyone. To this all magic spells should also have been included, and for dwarfs instead of their "race spells" ofc runes that could have been added untop of the magic items. (the rulebook and magic book could have been two seperate books for profit for gw)

The players themselves could then call the +3 str weapon for the runic axe of Kragg, the cleaver of Grimgor, da club of da whaaagh, the sneaky blade of skaven warlord x.

The spells should be balanced unlike purple sun etc.

Now to this a list like ravenging hordes should have been released making all old army books out of date. This list should have been done alot more detailed than the ravenging hordes of 6th edition and should have been balanced.

In one great stroke the entire game would have been streamlined and balanced. The hobby would grow at enormous rate with the new edition as all players could get their armies ready in a whole new way rather than wait 3 years for a new army book to get truly into 8th.

Ofc new army books should have been done as the years went on, these lists would introduce some new balanced fun stuff like maybe a pt rebalance on the orcs or whatever and funny new choppa rules. But nothing gamebreaking. All serious gamers would ofc get their own race book and would love the new art work, rules, lists and new stuff (like giant spider etc).

To bad its not gonna happen. Imagine to see a proper balanced 8th edition of woodelves vs dawrfs vs orcs etc. No top tier armies no low tier armies. Ah the dream goes on.

One can always hope to see the game at that place one day.

snottlebocket
13-02-2011, 11:15
8th edition rule book should have contained all magic items that all races had the same access to. This way they would all have been balanced yet a large selection would have been available for everyone. To this all magic spells should also have been included, and for dwarfs instead of their "race spells" ofc runes that could have been added untop of the magic items. (the rulebook and magic book could have been two seperate books for profit for gw)


The 4th edition did exactly that. It didn't balance anything, it just made sure everyone could be a cheesy butt hat and the players with innately powerful characters could make them insanely powerful.

People need to realize that the problem mostly lies with the players, not the rules. If you want balance, play chess. You can't expect every race to get a different experience and still play balanced. Wargame rules just provide a means to play out a cinematic experience, one that is easily wrecked by one of the players failing to realize they're playing a game with each other instead of against each other.

If you have an unbalanced game, blame your opponent not the rules. If you want a competitive game, don't be stupid enough to pick a ruleset designed around the idea that everybody has access to different things.

Tower_Of_The_Stars
13-02-2011, 11:47
No offence, but I don't agree with this post at all. For example:


Now we got the orcs n goboo book and most of the old timers know that GW will revert to giving out magic items etc with later books failing to uphold balance.

You don't know this. FACT. Secondly, if they did why does that necessarily imply imbalance?


Now here is what should have been done, in my opinion (and something you might see 7 years from now when GW realises yet might again introduce huge new issues in 10th edition):

8th edition rule book should have contained all magic items that all races had the same access to.

This doesn't necessarily give balance either. For example should a chaos lord and a goblin boss pay the same number of points for a weapon that gives 1+ attack?


Now to this a list like ravenging hordes should have been released making all old army books out of date. This list should have been done alot more detailed than the ravenging hordes of 6th edition and should have been balanced

Yeah I guess since they have a track record of making balanced army books GW would have easily been able to do this :rolleyes:

Tymell
13-02-2011, 12:02
8th edition rule book should have contained all magic items that all races had the same access to. This way they would all have been balanced yet a large selection would have been available for everyone. To this all magic spells should also have been included, and for dwarfs instead of their "race spells" ofc runes that could have been added untop of the magic items. (the rulebook and magic book could have been two seperate books for profit for gw)

The players themselves could then call the +3 str weapon for the runic axe of Kragg, the cleaver of Grimgor, da club of da whaaagh, the sneaky blade of skaven warlord x.

But then GW gets accused of being lazy and dumbing things down. Plus, an item's usefulness will vary from army to army, and it's points cost would be better set within that context IMO, rather than a general free for all (which we had in 4th, but I don't remember it making the items inherently more balanced).


Now to this a list like ravenging hordes should have been released making all old army books out of date. This list should have been done alot more detailed than the ravenging hordes of 6th edition and should have been balanced.

Ravening Hordes was a basic get-you-by because the system changed dramatically from 5th to 6th. We needed Ravening Hordes to be able to play. The jump from 7th to 8th was less so, there's no real need to make the old army books out of date. Indeed, replacing an army book with a bare bones get-you-by list when it isn't truly necessary would probably annoy people more than anything.

It -would- be nice to see army books updated quickly to bring them in line with 8th edition, but this is more an issue with GW as a whole than a problem with 8th edition itself. They did it with 40K 3rd edition, churning out codexes at a rapid rate (granted this was partly due to them being more streamlined with less background info, but it did allow them to push them out faster).

DeeKay
13-02-2011, 12:57
After reading in the thread about how long before GW will drop their current idea of streamlining magic items and army books and the next couple of books will have alot more magic items I felt that it was time to once again speak my mind.

I said many many years ago that warhammer had huge issues and some of the things that needed fixing was: Making combats bloodier and less about ranks and pursuit ie not 0 deaths and then all knights flee and are run down etc. I also spoke about the importance about making the rules and the game faster and more simple. This was all the way back in 6th edition.

I liked the way combat worked in 6th and 7th. After all, historically speaking more men died in the rout than in actual combat. Retreating has always been the most dangerous military tactic.


When 8th finally arrived GW had realised many things I said and my hopes for 8th was huge. Alot of good stuff were done but the ball was sadly dropped on a few areas risking the balance of the game. Magic comes to mind with a handful gamebreaking spells etc.

Now we got the orcs n goboo book and most of the old timers know that GW will revert to giving out magic items etc with later books failing to uphold balance.

I must admit I have my suspicions, GW has done this kind of thing before. But to state categorically that this is true when no evidence has yet presented itself is foolish. You would need to see a trend in 3+ army books to certainly say.


Now here is what should have been done, in my opinion (and something you might see 7 years from now when GW realises yet might again introduce huge new issues in 10th edition):

8th edition rule book should have contained all magic items that all races had the same access to. This way they would all have been balanced yet a large selection would have been available for everyone. To this all magic spells should also have been included, and for dwarfs instead of their "race spells" ofc runes that could have been added untop of the magic items. (the rulebook and magic book could have been two seperate books for profit for gw)

The players themselves could then call the +3 str weapon for the runic axe of Kragg, the cleaver of Grimgor, da club of da whaaagh, the sneaky blade of skaven warlord x.

Nice idea, but the only way this idea works is if players pay a percentage of the character's cost for the weapon. And you know that won't happen because even for old timers percentages are difficult.


The spells should be balanced unlike purple sun etc.

Agreed. Spells IMO should have included more sensible buffs/debuffs and some minor blatty spells. Magic as is pretty much sucked the joy out of the game for me.


Now to this a list like ravenging hordes should have been released making all old army books out of date. This list should have been done alot more detailed than the ravenging hordes of 6th edition and should have been balanced.

In one great stroke the entire game would have been streamlined and balanced. The hobby would grow at enormous rate with the new edition as all players could get their armies ready in a whole new way rather than wait 3 years for a new army book to get truly into 8th.

How many months was it between the Skaven army book and 8th ed? Not being funny, genuinely asking. I couldn't see that approach working unless GW didn't release Fantasy books for at least a year. But then people would see that something was up, competitors included. But I have to concede that this idea is a better one than the "newest army is best" status quo.


Ofc new army books should have been done as the years went on, these lists would introduce some new balanced fun stuff like maybe a pt rebalance on the orcs or whatever and funny new choppa rules. But nothing gamebreaking. All serious gamers would ofc get their own race book and would love the new art work, rules, lists and new stuff (like giant spider etc).

To bad its not gonna happen. Imagine to see a proper balanced 8th edition of woodelves vs dawrfs vs orcs etc. No top tier armies no low tier armies. Ah the dream goes on.

One can always hope to see the game at that place one day.

In games like this, balance is extremely difficult to achieve. Not because of game developer capability (having said that I wonder if Matt Ward is capable of anything) but because of company demand. The company demands that their products make money, and the best way of doing that in GW's mind is to make each new book the best one yet. I haven't read the new O&G book yet, but I imagine that it trumps Skaven on a few things.

With regards,
Dan.

Gromdal
13-02-2011, 16:24
First off just because 4th edition was herohammer it doesnt mean that 8th would have to be. The items could simply be balanced. Its is just lack of vision that makes you claim that NO THAT WOULD BE HEROHAMMER. I find this argument often, people cannot see anything better than what currently is. Perhaps their own lack of ideas make it so that they think that GW has done the best it is possible to do period. I do not know why so many so often have such a hard time seeing that improvements could be done with ease.

Secondly as for history having more men routing than fighting that is a pure lie.

The templars fought to the last man, as did many turks. As did many british, as did the japanese in WW2.

But im not asking for a historic game, then alot of the troops would be unbreakable (as many troops have been in history.

But very rarely, if ever, have 20 knights on horse fled from 40 men on foot because they were outnumbered before a single man has died. This mechanic was terrible, and it made several combats look like a joke.

GW has realised this finally and 8th edition is alot more balanced with the flight- death combat ratio for a fun game.

However the imbalances are severe, and the game would greatly benefit from alot more balance. Out dating the army books would have been awesome, while still making the game vivid under coming years by a whole ravenging horde book that army after army would be updated from.

I can see it, every army more or less balanced. Focus on strategy and infantry blocks rather than magic, monsters and heroes (but all these play a support role) even if many cant. And maybe one day you will see it when it comes in 10th edition or whatever. And i bet you will scream how awesome the game finally is : )

snottlebocket
13-02-2011, 16:48
I can see it, every army more or less balanced. Focus on strategy and infantry blocks rather than magic, monsters and heroes (but all these play a support role) even if many cant. And maybe one day you will see it when it comes in 10th edition or whatever. And i bet you will scream how awesome the game finally is : )

It's an impossible fantasy, just like most of your anecdotes. Balance comes from an equal playing field, which is the first thing that goes out the window in wargames.

If you want the game to be won purely by the player's skill then you'll have to start by having both players play with the same pieces. And even games that do that often have an unfair advantage for the player that goes first or second.

ewar
13-02-2011, 17:03
then alot of the troops would be unbreakable (as many troops have been in history.

I'm not history buff, but I think you'll find that "many" types of ancient troops were definitely not unbreakable... All troops rout at some point.


But very rarely, if ever, have 20 knights on horse fled from 40 men on foot because they were outnumbered before a single man has died. This mechanic was terrible, and it made several combats look like a joke.

This makes me think that you don't understand the game - the actual problem in 7th was the exact opposite problem. Those knights would charge the 40 men on foot, kill a bunch who then couldn't fight back and would flee. The issue was that static res wasn't enough to resist the killing power of elite cavalry.

I'm 99% certain that in the entire history of 6th and 7th editions a unit of 40 infantry NEVER routed 20 knights when receiving the charge!

8th edition is fine, not perfect, but lots of fun at the expense of being tactical. And much more balanced than previous editions. Whether this will last is up to GW. But from what you've said here, I'm glad they're in charge and not you.

scruffyryan
13-02-2011, 19:35
how 8th should have been done.

Exactly as it is now except being disrupted prevents being steadfast, and all spells allow a look out sir

R Man
13-02-2011, 21:38
Secondly as for history having more men routing than fighting that is a pure lie.

The templars fought to the last man, as did many turks. As did many british, as did the japanese in WW2.

But im not asking for a historic game, then alot of the troops would be unbreakable (as many troops have been in history.

Actually, this is false. Most battles have ended in a rout. A few units were renown for their discipline, such as Spartans, the Theban Sacred Band, Templar's and some WW2 Japanese soldiers, but these were a minority and most would flee when they were outmatched. The number of routs greatly outnumber the amount of last stands.

Anyway, onto the main topic. I think the problem here is that your argument is only half applicable. At least where magic items are concerned. This edition has a large number of generic items which all or most armies have access to. The army unique items are ones that work with a specific army and are thus of little interest to anyone else. If in future other army books re-expand the number of magic items than this alone is unlikely to affect Orcs and Gobbo's much. Maybe something else will screw with it but we'll just have to wait and see for that.

dinobot
14-02-2011, 00:50
I think they should've toned down infantry blocks a little. Every game is basically a few infantry blocks, with some supporting artillery/monsters. Flankers now have to be 10 models, so they cost a ton, march blocking is almost impossible, heavy cavalry are no longer viable for combat roles (unless you spend a ton on them), redirectors are no longer viable. They took out everything but the combat units really, and now every game is the same with a few mini-deathstars marching towards each other, fighting till they die, then game over. There are far less tactical choices then the previous MSU oriented 7th edition offered.

Also magic is imbalanced and GW is insanely retarded for eternally refusing to balance the different army books stat/point-wise; in their errata's (or even the army reference section of the BRB) they could've edited in the "devestating charge" rule to all the heavy cav that it'd be applicable to and reduced the cost or buffed the other units that have suffered from the transition between editions. I don't see why everything has to be updated through the monolithic army books that take 5 years to be written (and why do they even take 5 years, they could easily seperate the rules and fluff and release them as seperate books, and update the rules in less than a years time...)

GW is just retarded to me. They don't have any idea what they're doing, and constantly redirect the blame to the players, saying that "it's not our fault the rules are imbalanced, it's the power gamers fault for abusing them!" - well sorry if I like to put thought into my army lists, and take stuff that's effective rather then just a bunch of random crap. Am I supposed to enjoy taking zombies and watch as skaven slaves slaughter them for half the cost? Am I supposed to enjoy taking dire wolves, and watch as they basically do nothing since they can't flee or fast reform? If GW simply updated my army book to say "hey, dire wolves are now fast cavalry and have toughness 4" and "zombies have been updated to cost only 2 points per model and have toughness 3" then I would be able to field those unused units and have more diverse choices in writing my army list... but as it stands, everything has been imbalanced by the new rules so there's minimal choices I can make unless I'm willing to conciously nerf my army for no real reason.

Surgency
14-02-2011, 00:57
I'm 99% certain that in the entire history of 6th and 7th editions a unit of 40 infantry NEVER routed 20 knights when receiving the charge!

While you do have a valid point, this is almost false... My unit of 14 Brettonian knights were routed by a unit of 20 TK Skeletons, after my Brets charged them :(


But as far as anecdotes goes, its very close ;)

tank_santa
14-02-2011, 01:20
What should have been done is not really anything to worry about since it was not done that way, nor can you control it.

WhiteShoes-n-gloves
14-02-2011, 04:42
14 brets fleeing to 20 guys is sad. But also remember, that it's rare for this to heppen. you not only have to loose the combat, you also have to roll terrible leadership. I suppose it would be interesting to see rules that made you unbreakable if you're not taking casualties etc.
Actually, I USED to hate the very strong psychology based wargame that certainly WAS Warhammer, but I grew to like it. The issue with mass killing in combat is the removal of attacks that come BACK after. Think about it, if you make the combats bloody, then really what you get is only one side attacking. Why do you think they took out that charges always strike first? because that meant whoever charged (now with the large amount of attacks) would winthe combat. So unless you want all combats to be striking simultaneously and find a new think for initiative to do (which I'm not saying is a bad idea), then I'm sorry, but I have to side with combats being psychology based.
-Liam

Hasufin
14-02-2011, 09:59
People need to realize that the problem mostly lies with the players, not the rules. If you want balance, play chess..

LOL True , and dont forget checkers too ...

Awilla the Hun
14-02-2011, 10:29
I think of it as a scale thing: one model= actually several soldiers (this breaks down in building defences of course, but I digress.) So both sides kill a few enemies, but actual "deaths" represent significant losses being suffered by one side.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
14-02-2011, 11:00
@Gromdal

I know this place is called whineseer, and is the most appropriate place on the internet to whine about warhammer.

But why waste your energy on this, instead of compiling and presenting your perfect edition to your friends and playmates and start playing the perfect fantasy wargame? If you'd miss tournaments, then you could just arrange some with the same perfect rules, perhaps they'd even spread and be widely accepted, and you'd be hailed as the saviour of the broken game, and GW forced to hire you at a luxurious salary :)

Whining however, will only make you feel worse :p

Odin
14-02-2011, 11:42
After reading in the thread about how long before GW will drop their current idea of streamlining magic items and army books and the next couple of books will have alot more magic items I felt that it was time to once again speak my mind.

I said many many years ago that warhammer had huge issues and some of the things that needed fixing was: Making combats bloodier and less about ranks and pursuit ie not 0 deaths and then all knights flee and are run down etc. I also spoke about the importance about making the rules and the game faster and more simple. This was all the way back in 6th edition.

When 8th finally arrived GW had realised many things I said and my hopes for 8th was huge. Alot of good stuff were done but the ball was sadly dropped on a few areas risking the balance of the game. Magic comes to mind with a handful gamebreaking spells etc.

Now we got the orcs n goboo book and most of the old timers know that GW will revert to giving out magic items etc with later books failing to uphold balance.

Now here is what should have been done, in my opinion (and something you might see 7 years from now when GW realises yet might again introduce huge new issues in 10th edition):

8th edition rule book should have contained all magic items that all races had the same access to. This way they would all have been balanced yet a large selection would have been available for everyone. To this all magic spells should also have been included, and for dwarfs instead of their "race spells" ofc runes that could have been added untop of the magic items. (the rulebook and magic book could have been two seperate books for profit for gw)

The players themselves could then call the +3 str weapon for the runic axe of Kragg, the cleaver of Grimgor, da club of da whaaagh, the sneaky blade of skaven warlord x.

The spells should be balanced unlike purple sun etc.

Now to this a list like ravenging hordes should have been released making all old army books out of date. This list should have been done alot more detailed than the ravenging hordes of 6th edition and should have been balanced.

In one great stroke the entire game would have been streamlined and balanced. The hobby would grow at enormous rate with the new edition as all players could get their armies ready in a whole new way rather than wait 3 years for a new army book to get truly into 8th.

Ofc new army books should have been done as the years went on, these lists would introduce some new balanced fun stuff like maybe a pt rebalance on the orcs or whatever and funny new choppa rules. But nothing gamebreaking. All serious gamers would ofc get their own race book and would love the new art work, rules, lists and new stuff (like giant spider etc).

To bad its not gonna happen. Imagine to see a proper balanced 8th edition of woodelves vs dawrfs vs orcs etc. No top tier armies no low tier armies. Ah the dream goes on.

One can always hope to see the game at that place one day.

With respect, you're completely wrong. While some magic items will be reasonably easy to balance for everyone, others are very dependent on the army they are used in. There are a few Bretonnian lances for example that are good but not overpowered on a human lord, but which would be absolutely obscene on a Chaos Lord.

And what about those items which are very army-specific, or interact with the army's special rules? Ones which help raise skeletons for example?

To take the rules for runes out of the Dwarf book would be absurd.

No, I'm afraid what you're suggesting would take some of the fun and variety out of the game, and in many ways make it harder to balance.

Haravikk
14-02-2011, 12:11
I don't think that 8th should define all magic items, and the treatment that the Orcs & Goblins got in that regard is a bit disappointing, as magic items help to give character to the army.
I suppose it's fair to say that some books do have too many items, so less, more focused items could be a good thing, but taking that too far isn't.

Odin
14-02-2011, 12:16
Flankers now have to be 10 models, so they cost a ton
How is that not a good change? A 5-man unit in the flank of a huge infantry block should be little more than an annoyance. MSU was a horrible thing to see, good riddance.


heavy cavalry are no longer viable for combat roles (unless you spend a ton on them)

Yes they are, they just generally need to be used well, and at the right time - as it should be.


redirectors are no longer viable.

They are less viable. Also as it should be.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
14-02-2011, 12:45
They are less viable. Also as it should be.

What do you mean? When my nasty darkies charge some chaos pooches to scare them off to get to the warriors behind them, its only natural that they get so caught up in the fun that they expose their flanks to the warriors :p

madden
14-02-2011, 13:26
A thought on orcs lack of items, maybe it's because orcs DON'T make any thing and have to nick there stuff off of others so use the generic ones(shaman stuff excepted plus some items are now in unit wargear ie mushrooms).
As to how to do 8th get rule book and play. If you want to change it do so with friends and maybe send your ideas to GW for 9th. But 8th is here deal with it.


Sorry for the rant fed up with people whining all the time about this that or the other.

dinobot
14-02-2011, 18:26
How is that not a good change? A 5-man unit in the flank of a huge infantry block should be little more than an annoyance. MSU was a horrible thing to see, good riddance.

5 men disrupting 25 men seems realistic to me, and anyways it's a war GAME not simulator, the realism should take some hits if it means strengthening the game mechanics (which 5 man disruption did as it presented more tactical options).


Yes they are, they just generally need to be used well, and at the right time - as it should be.

This is simply rhetoric, cavalry can in no way defeat infantry anymore (with the exception of blood knights, grail knights and chaos knights). Now the vast majority of cavalry are relegated to such menial tasks as war machine hunting, monster hunting, etc., that would be fine except that overlaps with the roles of fliers, cannons, and other units, so either way you look at it you're losing a unique shock unit, and exchanging it for a redundant and unglamorous support unit.


They are less viable. Also as it should be.

No they are completely unviable because the enemy will simply reform or redirect after combat and nothing will have been achieved.

Surgency
14-02-2011, 22:28
No they are completely unviable because the enemy will simply reform or redirect after combat and nothing will have been achieved.

What if you were to, I dunno, charge the front of the unit you want to destroy with infantry, then charge the flank with cavalry? I mean, I know its going out on a limb, but would that work at all?

Haravikk
14-02-2011, 22:45
This is simply rhetoric, cavalry can in no way defeat infantry anymore (with the exception of blood knights, grail knights and chaos knights). Now the vast majority of cavalry are relegated to such menial tasks as war machine hunting, monster hunting, etc., that would be fine except that overlaps with the roles of fliers, cannons, and other units, so either way you look at it you're losing a unique shock unit, and exchanging it for a redundant and unglamorous support unit.
Or... not? A combined infantry assault on the front of an enemy with cavalry in their flank or rear is devastating. Cavalry are only really less powerful on their own, and only the most expensive can really go one-on-one with an infantry block now and hope to do much meaningful damage, but even then those types of elite cavalry will start to struggle as they're held in place.

But use them together with other units (you know, tactics) and cavalry are still very powerful, as their movement alone allows them to get into the right place for a supporting charge, their hitting power on an enemy flank or rear is certainly a nice bonus though.


No they are completely unviable because the enemy will simply reform or redirect after combat and nothing will have been achieved.
The only things that really make redirectors less viable are the random charge, as it's difficult to present a tempting target at an uncertain distance, and the leadership test to restrain Frenzy. However, redirection is still perfectly possible, but instead of being something you can pull off with ease with nearly any cheap unit you like, you actually have to properly risk that unit or purposefully sacrifice it in order to move an enemy off-target.

Reforming may be quicker now, but it's still time wasted and if that keeps a strong enemy unit from doing any meaningful damage then it's well worth it.

R Man
14-02-2011, 22:47
5 men disrupting 25 men seems realistic to me, and anyways it's a war GAME not simulator, the realism should take some hits if it means strengthening the game mechanics (which 5 man disruption did as it presented more tactical options).

5 man units did not in any way enhance tactics. All it did was encourage MSU spam.


This is simply rhetoric, cavalry can in no way defeat infantry anymore (with the exception of blood knights, grail knights and chaos knights). Now the vast majority of cavalry are relegated to such menial tasks as war machine hunting, monster hunting, etc., that would be fine except that overlaps with the roles of fliers, cannons, and other units, so either way you look at it you're losing a unique shock unit, and exchanging it for a redundant and unglamorous support unit.

You do realize that most cavalry have better armour than these units right? They also do far more damage in most cases. In fact, when teaming them up with a defensive block of cheap infantry they are good. Empire Swordsmen in deep columns break steadfast and knights provide the kills and break the enemy. I admit there are some discrepancies with price, but guess what. That's because the books are mostly from last edition! Fancy that.

Stronginthearm
14-02-2011, 23:23
Secondly as for history having more men routing than fighting that is a pure lie.

The templars fought to the last man, as did many turks. As did many british, as did the japanese in WW2.

Ok check some of your facts against fact not just surmise and "what some guy in a bar told me" most of the time armies don't fight to the death, that sort of thinking depopulates countries, consider the size of the armies,(using for example the battle of Austerlitz as an example) you bring 73,000-85,000 men (Russians and Austrians) they lost the battle and still walked away with more then 40,000 men (15,000 killed and 12,000 captured) and that's losing

The whole concept of fight to the last man is a nice romantic one but very few battles(few being VERY few) actually involved situations of it, officers who could keep their units together after 30% casualties were doing well, it's hard on the unit as a wholeand on cohesian, you have to reform your 500 man battalion after 50 get shot, and they don't all nicely get taken from the back. The whole Thermopolye (300) thing of Spartans fighting to the last is considerably off, yes three hundred stayed and died but quite a few buggered off back to the cities.

Generals who think that the best part of war is the last glorious stand tend to lose them, yes some japanese refused to surrender, not the same as fighting to the last man, after WW2 there were some 570,000 Japanese were send to soviet work camps after they were caught before the advancing Red Army in Korea, I'm not sure what you mean by "brits" many wars british soldiers fought in ended in surrender, (American revolution, the brits didn't fight to the last man there)

For Warhammer it says in the book that a unit destroyed fleeing isn't all nessesarily dead, they have some dead and the rest are scattered beyond hope of reforming,

Spyral
14-02-2011, 23:36
I thought with the invention of spears and pikes (not to mention crossbows) that cavalry weren't that powerful. A pleb with a glaive could poleaxe a knight easily!

Tymell
15-02-2011, 00:13
I thought with the invention of spears and pikes (not to mention crossbows) that cavalry weren't that powerful. A pleb with a glaive could poleaxe a knight easily!

Cavalry continued to be useful all the way up until the late 19th/early 20th century. Medieval cavalry were well protected against weapons of those times with their heavy armour. Once gunpowder weapons began to arrive the armour was set aside in favour of speed and maneuverability: cavalry were ideal for delivering a strike at an important point or time in a battle (e.g. flank charges, something I'm sure Warhammer players are familiar with ;) ). Plus there's the psychological impact: a cavalry charge is a frightening thing, even if you are wielding a good weapon to fight back with.

Much of which does carry in some way into the game, though in 8th the emphasis of cavalry does seem to have shifted 'further along' chronologically, away from shock troops and towards tactical strikes.

dinobot
15-02-2011, 00:44
What if you were to, I dunno, charge the front of the unit you want to destroy with infantry, then charge the flank with cavalry? I mean, I know its going out on a limb, but would that work at all?

It would be viable except for the fact that heavy cavalry are prohibitively expensive. Average knight costs 20+ points, so a unit of 10 is 200 points... now, you can't have just 10 cause 1 or 2 will get shot down or killed in combat, so you have to raise it to about 12. 240 points for a cavalry unit, and the only advantage they have is higher speed and a slightly higher armour save. It's more cost effective to spend those 240 points on a couple of monsters, as they'll thin enemy ranks through kills AND probably generate more combat res. than the knights while doing it. Knights are simply too costly for what they can do, and their uses are essentially redundant as monsters/artillery/fliers all play the same role more cost effectively.


5 man units did not in any way enhance tactics. All it did was encourage MSU spam.

More rhetoric. Simply put, the more units the have the more tactical decisions you will make. In 8th you have like, 5 infantry blocks and a few support units (warmachines, monsters, etc.). You basically just send them into combat, roll a bunch of dice, then game over. In 7th you had far more choices to make, since there were many more units on the field and they had specialized roles so you weren't just mashing infantry together and seeing which block is stronger or luckier.


You do realize that most cavalry have better armour than these units right? They also do far more damage in most cases. In fact, when teaming them up with a defensive block of cheap infantry they are good. Empire Swordsmen in deep columns break steadfast and knights provide the kills and break the enemy. I admit there are some discrepancies with price, but guess what. That's because the books are mostly from last edition! Fancy that.

Rhetoric. If you spend 240 points on a cavalry unit, then your infantry unit will be 240 points smaller. Enemy who invested all his points into a deathstar will outrank both your units and so he'll have steadfast and you won't. And yes, here you say the cost is the issue, that is correct but I find no condolence in the fact that the new army books will change heavy cav's cost, because those new army books will take half a decade to all come out and by they're all finished a new edition will just come out and screw up the prices ONCE AGAIN. GW's lousy business model, or maybe it's good if you judge it by how many yachts the CEO can buy, who know's.

Captainbastard
15-02-2011, 00:56
5 man units did not in any way enhance tactics. All it did was encourage MSU spam.



You do realize that most cavalry have better armour than these units right? They also do far more damage in most cases. In fact, when teaming them up with a defensive block of cheap infantry they are good. Empire Swordsmen in deep columns break steadfast and knights provide the kills and break the enemy. I admit there are some discrepancies with price, but guess what. That's because the books are mostly from last edition! Fancy that.


5 men disrupting 25 men seems realistic to me, and anyways it's a war GAME not simulator, the realism should take some hits if it means strengthening the game mechanics (which 5 man disruption did as it presented more tactical options).



This is simply rhetoric, cavalry can in no way defeat infantry anymore (with the exception of blood knights, grail knights and chaos knights). Now the vast majority of cavalry are relegated to such menial tasks as war machine hunting, monster hunting, etc., that would be fine except that overlaps with the roles of fliers, cannons, and other units, so either way you look at it you're losing a unique shock unit, and exchanging it for a redundant and unglamorous support unit.



No they are completely unviable because the enemy will simply reform or redirect after combat and nothing will have been achieved.

1. Five men units encouraged totally unrealistic armies. Warhammer is not simply a tactical game as you suggest, but is supposed to actually represent two armies fighting. Disrupting 5 men units does not give you more tactical options - it ruins real wargame tactics and replaces them with tactics that even a two year old could come up with.

More to the point I think the thing that people miss out on is that the new rules encourage more realistic sized units and armies. Gone are the days when 35 man armies were valid. Players who enjoyed those kind of tactics should switch to magic cards.

2. In the dark ages and medieval periods its not like small units of cavalry could take out whole armies by itself, so why should they in warhammer? The points cost for boar boyz has gone down and I suspect many other units will go down too. But it was getting to the point where players just had one hard cavalry unit, a big monster, two units of small flankers and three units of ten troops. Its not a skirmish game for a few monsters and spellcasters and cavalry, but like you said its a wargame.

The things which you call strengthened game mechanics and tactical options are in fact bad game mechanics and bad tactics.

Spyral
15-02-2011, 01:41
Aside from what appears to be silly magic I'm glad its away of MSU. MSU got by on bonuses as opposed to actual damage - 10 saurus in 2x5 with a flank charge was better than 15 in the face. Maybe it should be this way but I'm not sure..

dinobot
15-02-2011, 02:52
1. Five men units encouraged totally unrealistic armies. Warhammer is not simply a tactical game as you suggest, but is supposed to actually represent two armies fighting. Disrupting 5 men units does not give you more tactical options - it ruins real wargame tactics and replaces them with tactics that even a two year old could come up with.

More to the point I think the thing that people miss out on is that the new rules encourage more realistic sized units and armies. Gone are the days when 35 man armies were valid. Players who enjoyed those kind of tactics should switch to magic cards.

2. In the dark ages and medieval periods its not like small units of cavalry could take out whole armies by itself, so why should they in warhammer? The points cost for boar boyz has gone down and I suspect many other units will go down too. But it was getting to the point where players just had one hard cavalry unit, a big monster, two units of small flankers and three units of ten troops. Its not a skirmish game for a few monsters and spellcasters and cavalry, but like you said its a wargame.

The things which you call strengthened game mechanics and tactical options are in fact bad game mechanics and bad tactics.

In case you haven't noticed 8th edition doesn't encourage actual armies either, since when is 100 soldiers in 3 regiments classified as an army? It's more like skirmishes and skirmishes aren't all about phalanxes, no they are instead about *gasp* skimishers.

Okay and again you say having more units doesn't give you more options... do you actually have an arguement to support this or is this just the rhetoric you shout and plug your ears when you hear someone elses opinion? Common sense dictates that more units on the field would give you more tactical options and decisions to make. 8th sux cause you have only a few units, and they basically just charge each other and the only decisions you make are what spells to cast, what to shoot, and minor ones like whether to challenge.

Ok and next you make many logical fallacies: you say that in real life armies consisted of ranked soldiers so in warhammer the same should happen. First of all you already covered this, but I will humour you anyways: warhammer is a game it should attempt to first and foremost be fun to play and having more options is inherently more fun because having few options leads to repetitiveness and for sane folk repitivness = boring. Another flaw is that ranked infantry weren't always the norm in real life; do you think the celts, cavemen, mongols or native americans formed themselves into ranks? No they did not, and if Romans had access to dragons and spells that could nuke clustered groups of soldiers they wouldn't have either. It is a fantasy game if anything it would make sense to not have any ranked soldiers at all, it actually just for the thematic look that infantry blocks give that they're even included.

Ok and you also use a strawman arguement repeatedly by implying that 7th was dominated by 5 man units and 35 man armies. Maybe for daemons, wood elves, you know those armies that are characterized by it's few elite units. Horde armies otth had many ranked infantry blocks and if that was your thing you had the choice of going with them. And furthermore if they wanted to shift the game to a more infantry focused game they didn't have to do it to such an extent; if they'd merely added supporting attacks, step-up and made steadfast cancelled by flanking it would've adequitely shifted the game to the style you want. Instead they did all that and much, much more. They simply did not playtest it if they think steadfast should never be negated or that you should have to buy 12 heavy cavalry just to negate 3 combat res., GW is incompetant at writing rules and it wouldn't suprise me if they didn't seriously playtest these new rules at all, instead I bet they just played a couple of games with "friendly armies" (ie armies composed at random with no strategic thought put into list making) andd said "haha our consumers will literally buy ANYTHING we put on sale lets just use these they seemed to be balanced in our completely detatched playtesting!"

decker_cky
15-02-2011, 04:20
Honestly.....8th edition would have been best served by rewriting a new list racial magic lores and items, then errataing the 10 or so points costs that were obviously too high or too low through the game (maybe 10 of each). Those were the areas that really had the issues, and otherwise lists aren't too bad.

I also think GW should consider following up with a serious errata to fix some of the balance issues that stand out from the BRB. I'd like to see characters on chariot mounts made into a combined profile like monstrous cav, templates vs multi-part models returned to like it was for 7th, magic resistance working against no save spells, 4+ look out sir for characters in a different unit type, look out sir vs dwellers, and steadfast negated by the total combined ranks. Maybe a few other changes, but those are the key ones that jump to mind. GW's been good so far by answering questions, but they can continue to make Warhammer better by responding to feedback and making core rules changes.

Shimmergloom
15-02-2011, 06:45
Yes.

If they wanted to completely change the game the way they did that is fine. You can either like it, hate it, or grudgingly accept it.

However, the game was changed too much to simply let the army books stay as they are without a massive point adjustment update for every army.

You have too many units like dwarfs who can now move much, much faster but have their units designed for and adjusted for being M3 units. And many many units like Ogres who are M6 and were paying for that M6 but are now only slightly faster on average than a dwarf.

Or wolf riders or dark riders, who even throwing out all the changes to cavalry, were M9 and designed for a game system where M9 was a class act. But now can find themselves moving much slower than they did at any point before.

Also, the 'In' stat was mostly ignored since 4th edition. But now it's really important. But no one has units designed or adjusted for that stat. And even the first 8th book looks like they completely ignored the I2 for most greenskin units.

Between 5th and 6th, they threw out the rulebooks, because that was suppose to be a major change in force organization. And yet the change from 7th to 8th sees just a big of a change in force organization, but they didn't start from scratch. Instead GW is stubbornly trying to shoehorn many 6th edition armies into the 8th edition mindset.

And I will tell you the real reason. $$$ If they throw those books out, then that's less $$$ from people who are forced to buy those old outdated monstrosities from 6th and early 7th edition.

Odin
15-02-2011, 12:19
Or... not? A combined infantry assault on the front of an enemy with cavalry in their flank or rear is devastating. Cavalry are only really less powerful on their own, and only the most expensive can really go one-on-one with an infantry block now and hope to do much meaningful damage, but even then those types of elite cavalry will start to struggle as they're held in place.

But use them together with other units (you know, tactics) and cavalry are still very powerful, as their movement alone allows them to get into the right place for a supporting charge, their hitting power on an enemy flank or rear is certainly a nice bonus though.


If only cavalry had some way of getting into an enemy units flank zone, for example if they were in some way faster than infantry...

Lord Solar Plexus
15-02-2011, 13:40
Alot of good stuff were done but the ball was sadly dropped on a few areas risking the balance of the game.


You've lost me here. 8th edition has actually leveled the playing field. Armies are observably a lot closer together on any conceivable scale than before. 7th wasn't balanced at all, so there was nothing to risk.

Lord Solar Plexus
15-02-2011, 14:03
It would be viable except for the fact that heavy cavalry are prohibitively expensive. Average knight costs 20+ points, so a unit of 10 is 200 points...


How, pray, is that "prohibitively expensive"? :confused: This is just a blanket statement with no context or objective foundation whatsoever. A unit of 10 Empire knights is very useful and not too expensive.

You don't need 12 knights. Whether you have one rank or none is completely meaningless. You won't outrank infantry anyways, so don't bother, and 10/11 S5 + 5 S3 attacks in the flank should see you win with or without the rank bonus.

With the exact same justification you could say that spending 200+ points on infantry is "prohibitively expensive". A single mortar or hellcannon hit or spell makes them combat ineffective.



slightly higher armour save


1+ is not "slightly higher" than 6+. The difference could not possibly be any greater except when compared to completely unarmoured models.

Distorting the facts won't help you convince anyone.



It's more cost effective to spend those 240 points on a couple of monsters


No, it is not. It is impossible to spend those points on a couple of monsters.

Gromdal
15-02-2011, 16:14
Ok check some of your facts against fact not just surmise and "what some guy in a bar told me" most of the time armies don't fight to the death, that sort of thinking depopulates countries, consider the size of the armies,(using for example the battle of Austerlitz as an example) you bring 73,000-85,000 men (Russians and Austrians) they lost the battle and still walked away with more then 40,000 men (15,000 killed and 12,000 captured) and that's losing

The whole concept of fight to the last man is a nice romantic one but very few battles(few being VERY few) actually involved situations of it, officers who could keep their units together after 30% casualties were doing well, it's hard on the unit as a wholeand on cohesian, you have to reform your 500 man battalion after 50 get shot, and they don't all nicely get taken from the back. The whole Thermopolye (300) thing of Spartans fighting to the last is considerably off, yes three hundred stayed and died but quite a few buggered off back to the cities.

Generals who think that the best part of war is the last glorious stand tend to lose them, yes some japanese refused to surrender, not the same as fighting to the last man, after WW2 there were some 570,000 Japanese were send to soviet work camps after they were caught before the advancing Red Army in Korea, I'm not sure what you mean by "brits" many wars british soldiers fought in ended in surrender, (American revolution, the brits didn't fight to the last man there)

For Warhammer it says in the book that a unit destroyed fleeing isn't all nessesarily dead, they have some dead and the rest are scattered beyond hope of reforming,

Please keep the thread on topic, I answered bout history to be nice. Suffice to say I can pretty much promise you that my knowledge in history is far greater than you can imagine.

A small copy paste for you to the interwebz"Total sacrifice
Although some Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they were killed or committed suicide. In the last, desperate months of the war, this image was also applied to Japanese civilians. To the horror of American troops advancing on Saipan, they saw mothers clutching their babies hurling themselves over the cliffs rather than be taken prisoner.

Not only were there virtually no survivors of the 30,000 strong Japanese garrison on Saipan, two out of every three civilians - some 22,000 in all - also died."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/japan_no_surrender_01.shtml

If warhammer followed history then maybe more than 25% of all units would be unbreakable. My suggestions are NOT for a historic wargame however so stay on topic from now on. As for your own example it took massive casulties for victory to be won (unlike in warhammer where 0 casulties but more ranks can give instant wins etc). Again the point isnt what happened in x battle. Simply put i dont want units of discplined troops to auto flee because of x ranks (regardless of how many turks fought to the last man etc). 8th edition fixed alot of these things and was a very nice step.

Again small recap, balance and fun. Please reread the first post, and focus on the warhammer side of things as this is a forum for warhammer.

dinobot
15-02-2011, 18:32
How, pray, is that "prohibitively expensive"? :confused: This is just a blanket statement with no context or objective foundation whatsoever. A unit of 10 Empire knights is very useful and not too expensive.

You don't need 12 knights. Whether you have one rank or none is completely meaningless. You won't outrank infantry anyways, so don't bother, and 10/11 S5 + 5 S3 attacks in the flank should see you win with or without the rank bonus.

With the exact same justification you could say that spending 200+ points on infantry is "prohibitively expensive". A single mortar or hellcannon hit or spell makes them combat ineffective.



1+ is not "slightly higher" than 6+. The difference could not possibly be any greater except when compared to completely unarmoured models.

Distorting the facts won't help you convince anyone.



No, it is not. It is impossible to spend those points on a couple of monsters.

240 points is prohibitive in the sense that there're a myriad of other more effective and less costly alternatives. For the same cost you could get a 40 strong infantry unit; this infantry unit has steadfast, will break enemy steadfast generates 4 combat res without even having to flank charge, and has almost 4 times more wounds. For 70 points less you could get a monster; this monster will generate more kills/combat res and is more maneuverable. For 200 points you could get a lord, and again the lord is simply more versatile and will excel at whatever you build him to do.

Ok and you say 10 knights are enough to win combat... umm yeah, in first round and only if they charge (which isn't a given since we have random charge ranges). In subsequent rounds they are dead; infantry reforms and suddenly knights don't get lance bonuses... oops their goes your 200 point unit, AKA 10% of your 2000 point list.


Ok and now you are saying that cavalry have a +1 armour save. Maybe if you're empire knights. What about black knights? You gotta pay 28 points and they only have +2 AS. Vast majority of cavalry are only slightly superior to infantry in regards to armour; infantry w/ heavy armour and shielf have 4+ AS and 6+ ward save so in effect it's basically the same as 3+ AS. Not worth paying double points at the least for such a small AS advantage, even if you're empire and get 1+ AS.


Distorting the facts won't help you convince anyone.

How ironic it is to hear this from someone who "assumes" that everyone in the world plays empire and insists that spending 10% of your total points on a crappy band of one trick ponies is "viable".

minionboy
15-02-2011, 18:48
I love reading all the people that think they know how to make games better than a company that has been successfully making the game we play for nearly 30 years. I say put your money where your mouth is and create a strategy war game with 15 different and relatively balanced armies. It's not all that easy.

Everyone has things they like and dislike about every single edition of any game ever created, that's just the way of things. If you don't like it, don't play it. So far though, I'm proud to say that this is my favorite edition of fantasy.

dinobot
15-02-2011, 18:57
I love reading all the people that think they know how to make games better than a company that has been successfully making the game we play for nearly 30 years. I say put your money where your mouth is and create a strategy war game with 15 different and relatively balanced armies. It's not all that easy.

Everyone has things they like and dislike about every single edition of any game ever created, that's just the way of things. If you don't like it, don't play it. So far though, I'm proud to say that this is my favorite edition of fantasy.

Games Workshop has held a monoply since they began and even then they're still sinking. And put my money where my mouth is? That is strawman arguement if I ever saw one; give me millions in funding and a dozen people to assist me in writing those 15 books, and then I will do a better job then GW. Fact is that GW has all these people and money at their disposal yet they release the army books infrequently and when they are released they're often imbalanced and full of errors which may or may not get errata'd. Other smaller companies release better rule sets, but the "free market" doesn't always favour the better company, rather the more established one with more brand awareness and money to spend on brick/mortar stores to maintain their monoply.

Captain Ventris
15-02-2011, 19:00
I also like this edition, but I do agree there are a few things that are...unbalanced...thats why I'm trying to develop a set of "House rules" edits to the current set of rules, here's where I am currently, thoughts?

- 10% cap on Mages, Mages cannot make up more than 10% of your total army points, that includes heroes as well as lords. Magic is currently the number 1 gripe in 8th ed. for most players and I do believe it needs to be mitigated. Every army should NOT be running around with 2-3 Lord level mages. I think 10% gives an allowance of points to be spent on mages without being beardy. Note that all the other composition rules would remain.
- Charge Range = Double M+1D6, Change the charge range from Movement +2D6 to double your movement +1D6, this would be a much better (in my opinion) change that would be a halfway point between the two. I dislike having absolute charge ranges which can be finagled to basically disallow the other side to get the charge completely, but at the same time, when most of your charge range comes from your dice, that becomes unreliable. I think the 2M_1D6 would be an amicable midway point between the two. It gives an element of unknown to charge ranges without being completely unreliable
- Terrain decided by the players, we do not HAVE to use the random terrain generator…we can simply put down what terrain we want. If we WANT to use a piece of the magical terrain then sure we can, but every piece of terrain does NOT have to be magical and ridiculous. I would like to use the random number of terrain pieces rules, but not that every piece is a magical ******** piece…just make a nice looking board and if you WANT to have a wizards tower, you place one down when it’s your turn to place a piece of terrain.

anyone have thoughts on other changes that could/should be made?

decker_cky
15-02-2011, 19:03
The charging distance is perfect. The bell curve probability is what makes the mechanic. Charging is near perfect in 8th.

Random terrain generator is the optional rule. The default is players choosing one by one.

Captain Ventris
15-02-2011, 19:06
The charging distance is perfect. The bell curve probability is what makes the mechanic. Charging is near perfect in 8th.

Random terrain generator is the optional rule. The default is players choosing one by one.

I play with a group that feels they like how games were played in 7th where they knew exactly how far they would be able to charge and then ensure they always got it, (elves), though I completely agree with you that the charging in 8th is pretty good, the probability should usually be M+7 inches, but then you have the people that think that they don't want their "tactics" to be mitigated by dice however lucky or unlucky they are.

I also like having somewhat reliable shooting (Hellcannon) in my army (Warriors of Chaos) as we have no archers of any kind unlike the other armies in the game...

yabbadabba
15-02-2011, 19:28
Games Workshop has held a monoply since they began and even then they're still sinking. And put my money where my mouth is? That is strawman arguement if I ever saw one; give me millions in funding and a dozen people to assist me in writing those 15 books, and then I will do a better job then GW. Fact is that GW has all these people and money at their disposal yet they release the army books infrequently and when they are released they're often imbalanced and full of errors which may or may not get errata'd. Other smaller companies release better rule sets, but the "free market" doesn't always favour the better company, rather the more established one with more brand awareness and money to spend on brick/mortar stores to maintain their monoply. GW don't have a monopoly. In addition, GW developed the vast majority of their stuff without millions, loads of staff etc. Finally, GW is historically known for not only producing imbalance in the core games, but sticking rigidly to it. So all in all, those who stick to their stuff, but complain its not balanced are just self delusional.


Terrain decided by the players, we do not HAVE to use the random terrain generator…we can simply put down what terrain we want. If we WANT to use a piece of the magical terrain then sure we can, but every piece of terrain does NOT have to be magical and ridiculous. I would like to use the random number of terrain pieces rules, but not that every piece is a magical ******** piece…just make a nice looking board and if you WANT to have a wizards tower, you place one down when it’s your turn to place a piece of terrain. I think you can do that anyway. Top of page 142. Plus you don't have to do anything with mysterious terrain if you don't want to.

scruffyryan
15-02-2011, 21:22
I also like this edition, but I do agree there are a few things that are...unbalanced...thats why I'm trying to develop a set of "House rules" edits to the current set of rules, here's where I am currently, thoughts?

- 10% cap on Mages, Mages cannot make up more than 10% of your total army points, that includes heroes as well as lords. Magic is currently the number 1 gripe in 8th ed. for most players and I do believe it needs to be mitigated. Every army should NOT be running around with 2-3 Lord level mages. I think 10% gives an allowance of points to be spent on mages without being beardy. Note that all the other composition rules would remain.



A 10% cap on mages is basically a blanket ban on level 4 mages until points values of around 3000 points. Bad rule change.

Captain Ventris
15-02-2011, 21:24
A 10% cap on mages is basically a blanket ban on level 4 mages until points values of around 3000 points. Bad rule change.

Lvl 4 mages in low points games is one of the major issues with 8th, magic like Purple sun is just ridiculously devastating and can basically win the game for you by getting it off one time...

maybe 15% would be better, but the number of mages you bring has GOT to be restricted...not every hero in the Old world can control the winds of magic, they are supposed to be rare individuals to begin with

scruffyryan
15-02-2011, 21:48
Any lord level character is supposed to be a rare individual. And there IS a restriction on the number of mages you can take, a 12 power die cap. Applying that 10% cap absolutely RUINS vampire counts, lizardmen, high elves, tomb kings, ogre kingdoms.... And inversely it provides a massive benefit to dwarves, and pure khorne chaos, who no longer need to tone down pure melee murder to mitigate a strong magic phase. It simply wildly swings the balance in another direction. Something as simple as allowing LOS vs spells fixes most of people's problems with the magic phase. Disruption removing steadfast fixes people's problems with huge expensive deathstar units. The "fixes" to remove most people's egregious problems with 8th are right there, and without absolutely neutering either mechanic.

Surgency
15-02-2011, 22:05
Please keep the thread on topic, I answered bout history to be nice. Suffice to say I can pretty much promise you that my knowledge in history is far greater than you can imagine.

A small copy paste for you to the interwebz"Total sacrifice
Although some Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they were killed or committed suicide. In the last, desperate months of the war, this image was also applied to Japanese civilians. To the horror of American troops advancing on Saipan, they saw mothers clutching their babies hurling themselves over the cliffs rather than be taken prisoner.

Not only were there virtually no survivors of the 30,000 strong Japanese garrison on Saipan, two out of every three civilians - some 22,000 in all - also died."

I seriously doubt you "know more than we can possibly imagine" about history, when you seem insistent on taking1-2 examples from history, and applying to every battle across the board. The fact of the matter is that units holding to the last man, as has been said before, by people obviously more knowledgeable than you, is exceedingly rare. Thats one of the reasons the British were so surprised during the American Revolution, they expected the undisciplined rabble to break and run, like most of their opponents. So please, do us all a favor and stop pretending like you know so much.


240 points is prohibitive in the sense that there're a myriad of other more effective and less costly alternatives. For the same cost you could get a 40 strong infantry unit; this infantry unit has steadfast, will break enemy steadfast generates 4 combat res without even having to flank charge, and has almost 4 times more wounds. For 70 points less you could get a monster; this monster will generate more kills/combat res and is more maneuverable. For 200 points you could get a lord, and again the lord is simply more versatile and will excel at whatever you build him to do.

It depends on what you consider effective. It sounds as if you want a power unit of 5-10 cavalry that can charge an infantry unit, wipe them out, and move on to the next unit in the same round. Guess what, we had those in 7th, and they were no fun to play against. Can't do that anymore, and no longer does the game center around who has the stronger knights. Now you need to support your infantry with your knights, the way it should have been.

Also, a 40 man unit isn't automatically steadfast. Its only steadfast if it has more ranks than the unit its in combat with. Guess what, throw infantry in the front, and cavalry in the flank, I think you'll see much different results... But I guess that would involve actual thought, and not just "I'm charging your unit with my 10 man fear causing Nurgle Warriors, they'll be gone after this round"


Ok and now you are saying that cavalry have a +1 armour save. Maybe if you're empire knights. What about black knights? You gotta pay 28 points and they only have +2 AS. Vast majority of cavalry are only slightly superior to infantry in regards to armour; infantry w/ heavy armour and shielf have 4+ AS and 6+ ward save so in effect it's basically the same as 3+ AS. Not worth paying double points at the least for such a small AS advantage, even if you're empire and get 1+ AS.

4+/6+ ward is nowhere near the same as 3+. You really need to work on your facts. Most of the time knights have one or more of: better weapon skill, better toughness, better equipment, better leadership, more movement. So you're not just paying for an armour save, you're paying for a LOT more than that.


Games Workshop has held a monoply since they began and even then they're still sinking.

Something tells me you have no idea what a monopoly really is... Since GW doesn't hold a monopoly, in any sense of the word

R Man
15-02-2011, 22:13
More rhetoric. Simply put, the more units the have the more tactical decisions you will make. In 8th you have like, 5 infantry blocks and a few support units (warmachines, monsters, etc.). You basically just send them into combat, roll a bunch of dice, then game over. In 7th you had far more choices to make, since there were many more units on the field and they had specialized roles so you weren't just mashing infantry together and seeing which block is stronger or luckier.

Except that's ********. Often the result of the game was based mostly on who had the uber mages, ASF and whatever god awful monster or impossible cavalry you could throw in. Games in 7th were just as death star, if not more so than 8th, and the units that weren't death star were bait. It was smash and grab and the only way to survive was to be stubborn, unbreakable or hope for double 1's. In addition to this the small hit and run skirmish type units were incredibly easy to use and units like Elves and Skinks were almost impossible for some armies to fight as there was no way to reach them in most cases, making effective MSU more an artifact of list construction and rules than of actual tactics.


Ok and you also use a strawman arguement repeatedly by implying that 7th was dominated by 5 man units and 35 man armies. Maybe for daemons, wood elves, you know those armies that are characterized by it's few elite units. Horde armies otth had many ranked infantry blocks and if that was your thing you had the choice of going with them.

And what were the dominant armies in 7th? Thats right, Daemons and Elves. Dark Elves though, not Wood Elves. And they weren't the only armies to benefit from Heavy hitting death stars. In their day Bretonnians could make quite a few nice ones and all Cavalry armies were common. The High Elves didn't have it bad either with small units of WL working with Dragon Princes. The only Horde army that came close to dominating were the Vampire counts, and their infantry is plastered with special rules and backed up by some fearsome magical support.


A small copy paste for you to the interwebz"Total sacrifice
Although some Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they were killed or committed suicide. In the last, desperate months of the war, this image was also applied to Japanese civilians. To the horror of American troops advancing on Saipan, they saw mothers clutching their babies hurling themselves over the cliffs rather than be taken prisoner.

Not only were there virtually no survivors of the 30,000 strong Japanese garrison on Saipan, two out of every three civilians - some 22,000 in all - also died."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa...ender_01.shtml

If warhammer followed history then maybe more than 25% of all units would be unbreakable. My suggestions are NOT for a historic wargame however so stay on topic from now on. As for your own example it took massive casulties for victory to be won (unlike in warhammer where 0 casulties but more ranks can give instant wins etc). Again the point isnt what happened in x battle. Simply put i dont want units of discplined troops to auto flee because of x ranks (regardless of how many turks fought to the last man etc). 8th edition fixed alot of these things and was a very nice step.

So your basing this statistic on a single battle? There were many battles where the enemy just ran for it. Such as:
The battle of Issus
The battle of Gaugamela
The battle of Pharsalus
The battle of Adrianople
From the ancient world. In Medieval Times such famous battles ended with men legging it such as:
Hastings
Castillon
Novara

And I could go on but I think this is enough.

dinobot
15-02-2011, 22:27
It depends on what you consider effective. It sounds as if you want a power unit of 5-10 cavalry that can charge an infantry unit, wipe them out, and move on to the next unit in the same round. Guess what, we had those in 7th, and they were no fun to play against. Can't do that anymore, and no longer does the game center around who has the stronger knights. Now you need to support your infantry with your knights, the way it should have been.

Strawman argument, I will not humour this.


Also, a 40 man unit isn't automatically steadfast. Its only steadfast if it has more ranks than the unit its in combat with. Guess what, throw infantry in the front, and cavalry in the flank, I think you'll see much different results... But I guess that would involve actual thought, and not just "I'm charging your unit with my 10 man fear causing Nurgle Warriors, they'll be gone after this round

K, you spend 240 points on a knight unit and 240 points on an infantry unit. But your opponent spends 480 points on 2 infantry units, so now you can't gang up on either. Assuming your cavalry hasn't already been destroyed by musket fire (and that's a big assumption btw) they are now relegated to such worthless duties as: getting owned by monsters, hunting warmachines worth half their points, etc..


4+/6+ ward is nowhere near the same as 3+. You really need to work on your facts. Most of the time knights have one or more of: better weapon skill, better toughness, better equipment, better leadership, more movement. So you're not just paying for an armour save, you're paying for a LOT more than that.

It's only slightly worse than a 3+ AS. Come back when you've worked on your math. And since when do cavalry have better toughness btw? Their standard benefits include: better leadership (fairly worthless when you have generals and heroes to lead), better WS (not a big deal here tbh), better movement (so they can be useless, but they can do it faster?) and better AS (oh look we have less than half as many wounds as equally priced infantry but we die 15% slower yippee!!!). All those "benefits" considered they really aren't worth tripple, or even double, the cost of infantry.


Something tells me you have no idea what a monopoly really is... Since GW doesn't hold a monopoly, in any sense of the word

They have a monoply in all but name, who else is competing with them? Tiny baby companies that have like, 5% the market share. They have a bigger hold over their market than Microsoft has ever had over theirs.

dinobot
15-02-2011, 22:30
Except that's ********. Often the result of the game was based mostly on who had the uber mages, ASF and whatever god awful monster or impossible cavalry you could throw in. Games in 7th were just as death star, if not more so than 8th, and the units that weren't death star were bait. It was smash and grab and the only way to survive was to be stubborn, unbreakable or hope for double 1's. In addition to this the small hit and run skirmish type units were incredibly easy to use and units like Elves and Skinks were almost impossible for some armies to fight as there was no way to reach them in most cases, making effective MSU more an artifact of list construction and rules than of actual tactics.

7th had problems my point is that 8th went way overboard in addressing them and now we're simply at the other end of the spectrum.


And what were the dominant armies in 7th? Thats right, Daemons and Elves. Dark Elves though, not Wood Elves. And they weren't the only armies to benefit from Heavy hitting death stars. In their day Bretonnians could make quite a few nice ones and all Cavalry armies were common. The High Elves didn't have it bad either with small units of WL working with Dragon Princes. The only Horde army that came close to dominating were the Vampire counts, and their infantry is plastered with special rules and backed up by some fearsome magical support.

True, balance has gotten better. I'd attribute the poor balance in 7th to the army books though, not the rules in the BRB.

decker_cky
15-02-2011, 22:47
Why can't you take advantage of the increased movement of your knight unit to send them in a combined charge with your infantry block, killing one of your opponent's infantry blocks to negligible loss. Cavalry enables infantry to win battles it would be outmatched against, or which otherwise would simply be a battle of attrition.

Haravikk
15-02-2011, 22:49
Strawman argument, I will not humour this.
Sounds like you're just kicking out the valid arguments; cavalry may very well be a bit over-costed now, but that's because they were priced with 7th edition in mind, where they could charge and destroy units with impunity. 8th has done the right thing by removing that absurd "tactic" from the game entirely, so it leaves some cavalry a bit pricey, big deal, they're still useful if you use them properly.


K, you spend 240 points on a knight unit and 240 points on an infantry unit. But your opponent spends 480 points on 2 infantry units, so now you can't gang up on either.
Sure you can, you gang up on one and destroy it with a combined charge that you can pull off a lot more easily and a lot more quickly than they can against you. The alternative is that you also spend 480 points on 2 infantry units and it's probably going to be pot-luck who comes out on top in that situation as the four units grind each other to ribbons before eventually someone breaks.


better WS (not a big deal here tbh)
Better Weapon Skill means hitting more and being hit back less, so a fairly big deal, especially when combined with a flank or rear charge (less models to hit you back in the first place).


better movement (so they can be useless, but they can do it faster?)
...or get flank and rear charges, or ignore an enemy unit entirely by moving past it and just generally allowing you to make combined charges on your terms and not your enemy's.


better AS (oh look we have less than half as many wounds as equally priced infantry but we die 15% slower yippee!!!).
The most common armour save of infantry is what... 6+? 5+ for heavier armoured units.
The common armour for heavy cavalry is 2+ (heavy armour, barded steed, lance/spear + shield). So against enemies with great weapons you still have a 4+ save rather than instantly dead, while against lesser strength you're still looking at a +50% or +66% better chance of saving than typical infantry.


All those "benefits" considered they really aren't worth tripple, or even double, the cost of infantry.
No, and some are certainly a little over-priced, but many aren't. Even the over-priced ones are often worth fielding anyway, and clearly plenty of people think so as I don't see many games where armies that are known for good cavalry aren't still fielding them.
If you don't think anything justifies their points, then feel free not to field them, but others are clearly happy to and will probably love manoeuvring you into a nice combined charge :)

R Man
15-02-2011, 23:00
K, you spend 240 points on a knight unit and 240 points on an infantry unit. But your opponent spends 480 points on 2 infantry units, so now you can't gang up on either. Assuming your cavalry hasn't already been destroyed by musket fire (and that's a big assumption btw) they are now relegated to such worthless duties as: getting owned by monsters, hunting warmachines worth half their points, etc..

Except that the cavalry combine with the infantry better than two infantry units (depending of course on the actual units in question). Most critically the knights have a very high kill ratio for their charge, much greater than a similarly priced infantry. In addition their range allows flank charges to be more reliable, so where an infantry unit might fail it's charge a cavalry unit will most likely succeed. And some Knights are actually more resistant to musket fire than infantry, being that they will be shot about 1/2 as many times as the infantry, and against infantry most missile troops can afford to leg it and rally later.


It's only slightly worse than a 3+ AS. Come back when you've worked on your math. And since when do cavalry have better toughness btw? Their standard benefits include: better leadership (fairly worthless when you have generals and heroes to lead), better WS (not a big deal here tbh), better movement (so they can be useless, but they can do it faster?) and better AS (oh look we have less than half as many wounds as equally priced infantry but we die 15% slower yippee!!!). All those "benefits" considered they really aren't worth tripple, or even double, the cost of infantry.

Except that almost all heavy cavalry have +2 saves or better, and the infantry that have +3 saves or equivalent tend to be quite expensive, usually 9-12 points. Most infantry has much lower saves, about 5/6+, or even less, especially against shooting. So in reality your average knight is 2+ being compared to a 5+ save. Against 10 S3 wounds 1.67 knights would die, but so would 6.67 infantry. Thus the knights are about 4 times the durability of infantry. In addition they are twice as fast and will thus be shot less.


7th had problems my point is that 8th went way overboard in addressing them and now we're simply at the other end of the spectrum.

8th does have some problems. But no one is helped when these are exaggerated, blown out of proportion and filled up with hyperbole. You can still make a point in a reasonable manner without resorting to exaggeration. For example you could comment that cavalry tends to be overpriced now, or more limited in its uses than it used to be, rather than out and out condemnation.


True, balance has gotten better. I'd attribute the poor balance in 7th to the army books though, not the rules in the BRB.

I disagree. I think that the BRB allowed these abuses. The heavy emphasis on charging and wiping out the front ranks encouraged the ubering up of cavalry to gain both, which in turn necessitated ASF on troops. The lack of a limit of PD and their exponential growth encouraged the use of heavy magics and so on and so on.

koran
15-02-2011, 23:11
Wow.... Some painful comments here all around. Someone has already pointed out that GW did not start with millions in funding it built it up through hard work and creating great games. As much as I dislike some of the new warhammer rules there is no disputing this (though I have a feeling dinobot will try ;))

Their situation now is different to this, obviously, but they do not have a monopoly. More and more small games companies are starting up and being successful by coming up with better rules than GW (something GW seems to be loosing the ball on) and taking customers from them. I wont claim to know the exact figures of the wargames market but I am confident it is far from the monopoly thats being claimed.

Now on to the actual topic of this thread... 8th edition. I like some of the ideas behind the changes to the rules. It feels more like a war game than a skirmish but some rules did seem to be either poorly thought out and just dont feel like they were play tested (magic). I think the most horrible thing about the magic system is how poorly it scales between game sized. The max dice pool stops some problems at small games but make magic almost laughable if you want an apocalypse sized warhammer game.

Not wanting to get into the MSU debate, which is going around in circles, I would say that 8th lacks some of the tactical variety of 7th. I see too many games that are dull affairs where both sides line up and trudge forward with nothing inspiringly strategic. I know this will bring forth shouts about how people that I play with must play poorly but that just isnt so, many are very highly ranking in both warhammer and warhammer 40k tournaments.

yabbadabba
15-02-2011, 23:14
Why can't you take advantage of the increased movement of your knight unit to send them in a combined charge with your infantry block, killing one of your opponent's infantry blocks to negligible loss. Cavalry enables infantry to win battles it would be outmatched against, or which otherwise would simply be a battle of attrition. I agree - true combined arms strategy and tactics is essential in 8e :D

Surgency
15-02-2011, 23:18
Strawman argument, I will not humour this.

I've noticed that pretty much everything you disagree with is either a "strawman arguement" (though I'm not sure what definitino of strawman arguement you're using, as its obviously very different from everyone elses), or pure rhetoric that doesn't apply to this so called real world you live in.


K, you spend 240 points on a knight unit and 240 points on an infantry unit. But your opponent spends 480 points on 2 infantry units, so now you can't gang up on either. Assuming your cavalry hasn't already been destroyed by musket fire (and that's a big assumption btw) they are now relegated to such worthless duties as: getting owned by monsters, hunting warmachines worth half their points, etc..

So all you have is a knight unit, and an infantry unit, while your opponent has 2 infantry units, and quite a lot of ranged units (at least 40 models worth, probably more). Seeing as how your opponent is probably 2-300 points ahead of you now, you might want to add a few more units to balance things out. If you try to take just a single unit of cavalry and a single unit of infantry, in a vacuum, against a full army, It should be rather clear who's going to win.

How about supporting your cavalry? skirmisher unit to deal with ranged threats, or warmachines, infantry to tie up other blocks of infantry, maybe a monster or 2 to deal with weaker units, or a warmachine to deal with elites... And then throw in cavalry to flank. Guess what, you have a WHOLE army there, and the cavalry will assist you in a win. All GW did, and all you're crying about, is make it so that you don't auto-win just because you have a unit of elite cavalry


It's only slightly worse than a 3+ AS. Come back when you've worked on your math.

3+ is 16% more effective than 4+, across the board. Regardless of strength, until you get to str 6, then it doesn't matter. And that assumes heavily armored infantry, and lightly armoured cavalry. Most heavy cavalry in the game comes with a 2+ save, and most infantry in the game comes with either a 5 or a 6+ armour save. So really, Cavalry usually have a substantial advantage, unless you choose to charge Ellyrian Reavers into WoC Warriors...



And since when do cavalry have better toughness btw? Their standard benefits include: better leadership (fairly worthless when you have generals and heroes to lead), better WS (not a big deal here tbh), better movement (so they can be useless, but they can do it faster?) and better AS (oh look we have less than half as many wounds as equally priced infantry but we die 15% slower yippee!!!). All those "benefits" considered they really aren't worth tripple, or even double, the cost of infantry.

Generals and Heroes provide a 12 in LD bubble. Cavalry, since they often have leadership almost equal to that of your heroes, can operate outside of that bubble effectively. I've never heard ANYONE argue that better weapon skill isn't a big deal, so I'm not even sure how to respond to that.

Since when is movement useless? In a game that depends on maneuver, movement is kinda valuable. I'm not sure what game you've been playing where movement isn't important.

I think you really need to evaluate your tactics, and not just throw units at the enemy. Typically that doesn't work to well, unless you outnumber your enemy by 10+ to 1.

You still haven't provided any valid reason as to why Cavalry are so terrible in this edition. I understand that you want Cavalry to be your instant win button, but thats just not the case anymore. Several people in this thread have refuted your claims, yet all you do is plug your ears, and cry strawman arguement and rhetoric for everything that doesn't line up with your point of view.


They have a monoply in all but name, who else is competing with them? Tiny baby companies that have like, 5% the market share. They have a bigger hold over their market than Microsoft has ever had over theirs.

And where are the numbers for this 95% market share that GW controls? GW released revenue recordings of £126.5m GBP. So what you're saying is that Privateer Press, Rakham, Wizkids (makers of the clix games), Battlefront Miniatures (FoW), and several other smaller companies only make around..... £10m combined? Thats a bit extreme there. Might want to check numbers before you just run off spewing information that isn't verified

dinobot
16-02-2011, 00:10
Why can't you take advantage of the increased movement of your knight unit to send them in a combined charge with your infantry block, killing one of your opponent's infantry blocks to negligible loss. Cavalry enables infantry to win battles it would be outmatched against, or which otherwise would simply be a battle of attrition.

Okay, you try that and your infantry fall short. He charges your infantry next turn and wipes you out piecemeal. Alternatively, he simply gets the first charge off (entirely likely given his infantry have the same movement as yours) and again, wipes you out piecemeal. Yet another alternative: he hides in a corner and it's a stalemate.

The simple fact is, knights have no practical role which the excel in. You using them for flankers? Monsters are cheaper, just as fast and will generate more combat resolution due to their killing power. Are your cavalry warmachine hunters? Again stepping on the toes of monsters, but also fliers and light cavalry (all 3 of which are cheaper). What else is there?

Knights are simply outperformed in all areas.


cavalry may very well be a bit over-costed now, but that's because they were priced with 7th edition in mind, where they could charge and destroy units with impunity.

K, so how is this not 8th edition's fault? It could've easily re-done the stats and costs for cavalry in the BRB's reference section. But it didn't. Now cavalry will be useless for next 5 years. That's a pretty big flaw tbh.


Sure you can, you gang up on one and destroy it with a combined charge that you can pull off a lot more easily and a lot more quickly than they can against you. The alternative is that you also spend 480 points on 2 infantry units and it's probably going to be pot-luck who comes out on top in that situation as the four units grind each other to ribbons before eventually someone breaks.

Okay, so I can either have a 50/50 chance that my infantry army defeats the enemies replica of my infantry army in an arbitrary duel, OR, I can have a 30/70 chance that my cavalry/infantry army will win... decisions decisions........


Better Weapon Skill means hitting more and being hit back less, so a fairly big deal, especially when combined with a flank or rear charge (less models to hit you back in the first place).

Infantry still win in war of attrition and other units *cough*monsters*cough* are superior at combined charges.


The most common armour save of infantry is what... 6+? 5+ for heavier armoured units.
The common armour for heavy cavalry is 2+ (heavy armour, barded steed, lance/spear + shield). So against enemies with great weapons you still have a 4+ save rather than instantly dead, while against lesser strength you're still looking at a +50% or +66% better chance of saving than typical infantry.

My grave guard have the equivalent of a 3+ AS. Guess what? I gotta pay 130% more for black knights who have a mere +2 armour save. So yeah, real benefit... pay more than double, for a tiny bit better defence, 3 extra movement and... that is it, those are the only benefits... cavalry = inferior.


...or get flank and rear charges, or ignore an enemy unit entirely by moving past it and just generally allowing you to make combined charges on your terms and not your enemy's.

Yes because spending so much on cavalry and thus having the smaller battle line will surely assist you in getting flank charges.... oh wait.


No, and some are certainly a little over-priced, but many aren't. Even the over-priced ones are often worth fielding anyway, and clearly plenty of people think so as I don't see many games where armies that are known for good cavalry aren't still fielding them.
If you don't think anything justifies their points, then feel free not to field them, but others are clearly happy to and will probably love manoeuvring you into a nice combined charge

Exactly, if other people are doing something they must be right! Oh look, my neighbours are jumping off a bridge into the fires of Hades, but I mustn't judge them because they have undoubtedly thought this through.... oh wait, no they didn't think that through, and niether did those people fielding cavalry. At least not from a strategic standpoint. More likely they're including cavalry and playing Brett's for fluff reasons. If you dismiss rule complaints on the basis of "lol fluff is all that matters" then you don't have much of an argument at all.


I see too many games that are dull affairs where both sides line up and trudge forward with nothing inspiringly strategic.

'Nuff said.

Surgency
16-02-2011, 00:37
whine whine whine whine whine whine

Essentially thats all you're doing. You're not presenting facts (infantry/cavalry combined charge have a 70% chance of losing? 2+ AS being only a slight upgrade over 5/6? Seriously?), you're not giving accurate statements, you're not even providing valid arguements. All you're doing is shouting rhetoric/strawman, pulling numbers out of thin air, and denouncing everyone else as being completely off their rockers

You think Knights are worthless. Thats fine, most of the Warseer community disagrees with you. But hey, you have a 70/30 chance of being right.

R Man
16-02-2011, 03:51
Okay, you try that and your infantry fall short. He charges your infantry next turn and wipes you out piecemeal. Alternatively, he simply gets the first charge off (entirely likely given his infantry have the same movement as yours) and again, wipes you out piecemeal. Yet another alternative: he hides in a corner and it's a stalemate.

The simple fact is, knights have no practical role which the excel in. You using them for flankers? Monsters are cheaper, just as fast and will generate more combat resolution due to their killing power. Are your cavalry warmachine hunters? Again stepping on the toes of monsters, but also fliers and light cavalry (all 3 of which are cheaper). What else is there?

Knights are simply outperformed in all areas.

1st of all, what on earth are you going on about? This seems to have no bearing on what decker_cky was actually saying.

Second of all, monsters are often not cheaper, often have much less armour. They also lack the special rules that enhance fleeing, pursuit and charges. Fliers and light cavalry are very vulnerable to missile fire making attacking big units suicide.


Okay, so I can either have a 50/50 chance that my infantry army defeats the enemies replica of my infantry army in an arbitrary duel, OR, I can have a 30/70 chance that my cavalry/infantry army will win... decisions decisions........

Prove it.


Infantry still win in war of attrition and other units *cough*monsters*cough* are superior at combined charges.

Sure Infantry win wars of attrition. But they loose out on combined arms. And monsters are not better at combined charges. Some armies can't even get monsters.


My grave guard have the equivalent of a 3+ AS. Guess what? I gotta pay 130% more for black knights who have a mere +2 armour save. So yeah, real benefit... pay more than double, for a tiny bit better defence, 3 extra movement and... that is it, those are the only benefits... cavalry = inferior.

Wrong. Your Grave Guard are only 3+ equivalent in combat. The rest of the time they are 4+ save. In addition Black Knights have lances, horse attacks (small but sometimes helps) and ethereal movement. They also pursue and charge further. And since you love monsters so much I'd like to point out that Cavalry are immune to stomp attacks.


Yes because spending so much on cavalry and thus having the smaller battle line will surely assist you in getting flank charges.... oh wait.

Yes. That's because of the higher movement rate and charge bonuses. The mobility of the battle line is more important than it's length. Unless you play skaven and then it gets ridiculous.


Exactly, if other people are doing something they must be right! Oh look, my neighbours are jumping off a bridge into the fires of Hades, but I mustn't judge them because they have undoubtedly thought this through.... oh wait, no they didn't think that through, and niether did those people fielding cavalry. At least not from a strategic standpoint. More likely they're including cavalry and playing Brett's for fluff reasons. If you dismiss rule complaints on the basis of "lol fluff is all that matters" then you don't have much of an argument at all.

What does this have to do with anything? Wait? You mean that we shouldn't take peoples choices as gospel? Like you are with the infantry hordes? There is little information in this post and much of it is factually wrong.

Flogger
16-02-2011, 06:57
Probably most ridiculous post I've ever read, all I see is you saying "it should have been balanced".. Just for the record, the game IS balanced IF you play as GW intented, TO HAVE FUN.. People making cheesy lists, looking for loopholes etc. are not what this game is about.

Tournaments, that's what ruin the game when it comes to balance. I love going to tournaments and playing loads of games vs different people but there is a difference between tournament play and friendly games play. In friendly games I haven't had a single issue if imbalance, ever! Should be mentioned that I haven't played tomb kings yet in 8th. From what I've noticed the only army with a kinda new book that still blows are Beastmen. All other armies have evened out more, some still better than others as always but 8th edition did make armies like dwarfs, o&G, empire, helves and welves more playable and thus more fun.

If 8th edition did anything it was really making the game superior and a lot more fun to play than it was in 7th.

koran
16-02-2011, 07:10
Probably most ridiculous post I've ever read, all I see is you saying "it should have been balanced".. Just for the record, the game IS balanced IF you play as GW intented, TO HAVE FUN.. People making cheesy lists, looking for loopholes etc. are not what this game is about.

Sorry, Im not sure I agree with the sentiment here. People play tournaments, lots of people. GW even runs tournaments so they know this. They should design a game that doesnt have such gaping loop-holes or the ability to make such cheesy lists (though this last point may become invalid as new "balanced" lists come out).

yabbadabba
16-02-2011, 07:22
Sorry, Im not sure I agree with the sentiment here. People play tournaments, lots of people. GW even runs tournaments so they know this. They should design a game that doesnt have such gaping loop-holes or the ability to make such cheesy lists (though this last point may become invalid as new "balanced" lists come out). They do. The games are called E:A and WM. GW do state that WFB is not designed for tournament play though.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-02-2011, 09:32
Rhetoric. If you spend 240 points on a cavalry unit, then your infantry unit will be 240 points smaller. Enemy who invested all his points into a deathstar will outrank both your units and so he'll have steadfast and you won't.


I can understand that you have a certain idea of how WH should play but do us all a favour and stop calling perfectly valid and practically tested arguments rhetoric when you base your opinion on such absurd prerequisites. If I spent 240 points on cavalry, I can easily have two or more infantry regiments to outrank a deathstar. Surely athat deathstar costs a lot more than 240 points.

Even if we assume that this deathstar kills so many as to deny me of more ranks, it's going to eat every mortar shell, rocket, cannoball and spell that I have. There is a very real downside to putting all eggs in one basket.



A small copy paste for you to the interwebz"Total sacrifice
Although some Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they were killed or committed suicide.


An exception to the rule and completely anachronistic to Warhammer's feudal/renaissance setting. It's not at all true for warfare in the feudal age: In the Flanders War (1127), with a thousand knights fighting for over a year, only one died by hostile action. Bouvines ("un Austerlitz medieval" according to Ferdinand Lot), the victorious French probably lost two men-at-arms (out of about three thousand); perhaps seventy to one hundred of the fifteen hundred defeated German knights were killed. At Lincoln in 1217, three knights were killed and four hundred captured. Orderic Vitalis tells us that at Bremule (1119), where nine hundred knights of two royal armies came head-to-head, only three were killed.

Even after the "Infantry revolution" of the 14th and 15th ct., during and because of which the numbers of casualties rise considerably, there is hardly any fight to the death. Poitiers sees 2,500 killed or wounded out of 20,500. At Navarrete, 7,000 Castiles are believed to have perished out of 60,000. The Battle of the Herrings sees less than 10 percent of the French attackers killed or wounded.

yabbadabba
16-02-2011, 09:55
Its been a while, but I am fairly sure that some of the battles from the early shieldwall period tended to be low casualty affairs, with either a graceful mutual retreat, or one side buggering off in the interval.

They certainly weren't all Mons Badonicus

Apologies, I don't have access to any sources despite, ironically, being in a Uni at the moment.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-02-2011, 09:58
The simple fact is, knights have no practical role which the excel in. You using them for flankers? Monsters are cheaper, just as fast and will generate more combat resolution due to their killing power.


I'm afraid I don't see any monsters in my Empire book that fit that description. Some monsters are cheaper but a cheaper Doomwheel isn't faster. It's considerably slower, and hardly guaranteed to have more killing power than 10/11 S5 + 5 S3 attacks.

Most monsters can be taken out by cannon or Spirit Leeched, unlike knights, or held up by ranked infantry just like knights.



Yes because spending so much on cavalry and thus having the smaller battle line will surely assist you in getting flank charges.... oh wait.


What the heck are you talking about? A HPA costs nearly as much as those 10 knights and has an even smaller front. It doesn't affect the width of the Skaven battle line because they're Skaven but there is no discernable difference in the width of a battleline because A has cavalry and B has a monster instead. There is no automatic width difference between 10 knights and 30 footmen.



Exactly, if other people are doing something they must be right! Oh look, my neighbours are jumping off a bridge into the fires of Hades


So we're back to rhetorics now? Oh well, Hades Heights is a very unpleasant neighbourhood anyways.

Being the self-styled lone voice of reason or a vocal minority doesn't make you right either.

yabbadabba
16-02-2011, 10:02
What the heck are you talking about? A HPA costs nearly as much as those 10 knights and has an even smaller front. It doesn't affect the width of the Skaven battle line because they're Skaven but there is no discernable difference in the width of a battleline because A has cavalry and B has a monster instead. There is no automatic width difference between 10 knights and 30 footmen. Width never bothered Alexander. Or come to think of it Chaos players.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-02-2011, 10:06
Indeed. It's length that matters.

Or the size of your codpiece.

Flogger
16-02-2011, 10:19
Sorry, Im not sure I agree with the sentiment here. People play tournaments, lots of people. GW even runs tournaments so they know this. They should design a game that doesnt have such gaping loop-holes or the ability to make such cheesy lists (though this last point may become invalid as new "balanced" lists come out).

Getting rid of those loopholes also gets rid of fun army builds which GW would hate as they love to make odd army builds designed for fun. The percentage system is a brilliant way of limiting things. If playing 2k the game is kinda balanced as is (with the exception of certain special characters like teclis etc.).
As Yabbadabba stated below, GW themselves say it's not designed for tournament play. They also state that 2k should be standard size games.


GW do state that WFB is not designed for tournament play though.

dinobot
16-02-2011, 10:45
1st of all, what on earth are you going on about? This seems to have no bearing on what decker_cky was actually saying.

Second of all, monsters are often not cheaper, often have much less armour. They also lack the special rules that enhance fleeing, pursuit and charges. Fliers and light cavalry are very vulnerable to missile fire making attacking big units suicide.

I was "going on about" how decker_sky's hypothetical scenario was unrealistic and proved nothing.

Monsters have better toughness and better saves. They are more resilient to all type of fire and spells except for cannons and Death Lore sniper spells. Heavy cavalry are the most vulnerable unit you can get when you look at their cost. You ever play someone who fields GUNPOWDER WEAPONRY? It is this entirely new tactic to field such things, you must play someone using it and get back to me.


Prove it.

Ya cuz I reeeeeally care about your hypothetical scenario enough that I'm willing to "prove it" when in fact all the scenario's components are at the whim of your arguments needs. I propose this scenario: 50 thunderers vs 10 knights and some lightly armoured infantry, who wins and why?


Sure Infantry win wars of attrition. But they loose out on combined arms. And monsters are not better at combined charges. Some armies can't even get monsters.

Actually infantry wins there as well. You ever heard of great weapons? Any infantry unit with those will destroy your knight unit, regardless of how many times you flank them. On the off chance that you do manage to flank 5 point infantry with S3, T3, 5+ AS, you're simply overwhelming a 240 point unit with 540 points of your own units. Could've done the same thing with less, much less. And while your massive 540 points of units are "combined charging" some helpless throw away unit, your enemies are concentrating their own forces on your special and rare choices. Enjoy having all your monsters shot to dead by cannons that the enemy afforded by not buying cavalry, and your own cavalry shot to dead by any gunpowder soldiers. Even crossbows own knights.


Wrong. Your Grave Guard are only 3+ equivalent in combat. The rest of the time they are 4+ save. In addition Black Knights have lances, horse attacks (small but sometimes helps) and ethereal movement. They also pursue and charge further. And since you love monsters so much I'd like to point out that Cavalry are immune to stomp attacks.

Too bad the knights lose out on great weapons. Pit 2000 points of black knights against 1000 points of Grave Guard w/ gw's, see who wins (it's the grave guard). Oh but black knights can flank! Yeah totall worthwhile. Not. I could simply buy twice as many grave guard and DOUBLE FLANK w/ them instead. In fact it would even be easier since my battle line would be wider. 'Nuff said.


Yes. That's because of the higher movement rate and charge bonuses. The mobility of the battle line is more important than it's length. Unless you play skaven and then it gets ridiculous.

Rhetoric, mobility doesn't matter when your mobile guys get shot and killed by a paltry amount of shooters, or when their mobility doesn't matter 'cause you're outnumbered due to spending 10% of your points on a monster wannabe.


What does this have to do with anything? Wait? You mean that we shouldn't take peoples choices as gospel? Like you are with the infantry hordes? There is little information in this post and much of it is factually wrong.

Difference is that you just stated "LOL I know these guys that play knights!" without any sort of argument as to why they play knights. I could easily say that I know people who use bat swarms in their VC list, doesn't mean anything if I don't elaborate on why they're doing so or how successful they are.

I can understand that you have a certain idea of how WH should play but do us all a favour and stop calling perfectly valid and practically tested arguments rhetoric when you base your opinion on such absurd prerequisites. If I spent 240 points on cavalry, I can easily have two or more infantry regiments to outrank a deathstar. Surely athat deathstar costs a lot more than 240 points.


Even if we assume that this deathstar kills so many as to deny me of more ranks, it's going to eat every mortar shell, rocket, cannoball and spell that I have. There is a very real downside to putting all eggs in one basket.

Ok this is where you and everyone elses argument falls apart: you assume that you get to spend an extra 240 points on cavalry and your opponent doesn't. No. You spend 240 points on cavalry that as far as you have said only have A SINGLE PURPOSE which is to generate 5 combat resolution.... ya great use of points. Now your enemy spends his extra 240 points on a more useful unit: gun horde, monster, everything else. Ya your cavalry provide you SOME benefit, but, they are not the most efficient choice, and so while they're busy being marginally effective the enemies choices are running at optimal efficiency and running you into the ground.

Odin
16-02-2011, 11:31
I've never heard ANYONE argue that better weapon skill isn't a big deal, so I'm not even sure how to respond to that.


OK then, I will. Although I agree with you on everything else.

Ws is a pretty weak characteristic compared to strength. Against Ws3 troops it makes no difference at all whether you're Ws4 or Ws10 - you still need 3s to hit.

Or to look at it another way, against Ws 3 troops, the difference between Ws2 and Ws 10 is +1 to hit.

Now obviously it does also make a difference to how easily the enemy can hit you, but for heavily armoured knights in the flank of an enemy infantry unit that isn't usually a major issue.

Compare that to the Strength characteristic, where an increase of +1S not only improves your ability to wound, but also reduces your enemy's armour save, and where the to-wound roll changes from 6+ to 2+ in just 4 steps, and +1Ws is usually little more than a nice bonus.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-02-2011, 11:45
Monsters have better toughness and better saves.


No, they don't. As usual, you are making up stuff on the fly that everyone can look up. That's pretty sad, dinobot.



You ever heard of great weapons? Any infantry unit with those will destroy your knight unit, regardless of how many times you flank them.


Don't be silly. There was never any doubt that there are things your knights better do not charge. If there's T5 infantry with 2+ saves and ASF GW's, knights will probably not fare very well.

We all know this is Fantasy we're talking about but you don't have to take that so literally. You accuse others of hypothetical scenarios and then you invent one in which the cavalry must lose...I'm not sure anyone finds that convincing.



On the off chance that you do manage to flank 5 point infantry with S3, T3, 5+ AS, you're simply overwhelming a 240 point unit with 540 points of your own units. Could've done the same thing with less, much less.


Yes, perhaps. Or perhaps not. I *could* panic or kill them with a mortar hit, or two infantry units or magic or characters. Whether that is cheaper or not is contingent. The idea of creating mismatches however is a good one, and cavalry can help with that because of their mobility. Indeed one will find it more difficult to flank a Skaven host but even that is far from exotic, so width really is irrelevant. There are easy ways to disrupt a battleline.

Neither the fact that the opposition will try the same nor the fact that it won't work in some situations (extremely powerful infantry) is a serious refutation.



Too bad the knights lose out on great weapons. Pit 2000 points of black knights against 1000 points of Grave Guard w/ gw's, see who wins (it's the grave guard).


Strawman.



paltry amount of shooters
monster wannabe


Meaningless rhetoric with no foundation. A paltry amount of crossbows is no danger. They kill none on turn 1, the knights go 14", crossbows kill one, knights charge, lose *perhaps* one to S&S, crossbows die. My knights have earned VP, you have earned none, and the knights can easily kill a second unit.

There are many units knights should not take on solo or even with support but that goes for infantry too and does not support your point I'm afraid.



you assume that you get to spend an extra 240 points on cavalry and your opponent doesn't.


Nobody assumes such a thing. We assume roughly equal points.

Odin
16-02-2011, 11:47
Monsters have better toughness and better saves. They are more resilient to all type of fire and spells except for cannons and Death Lore sniper spells. Heavy cavalry are the most vulnerable unit you can get when you look at their cost. You ever play someone who fields GUNPOWDER WEAPONRY? It is this entirely new tactic to field such things, you must play someone using it and get back to me.

Yes, and Monsters are far more vulnerable to cannons, bolt throwers, and very often to spells that require Initiative tests, and also more vulnerable to killer characters (my Khorne Lord will carve any monster into meaty chunks, but a challenge from an enemy knight champion can really ruin his day).

dinobot
16-02-2011, 12:38
No, they don't. As usual, you are making up stuff on the fly that everyone can look up. That's pretty sad, dinobot.

Oh dang you're right, monsters only have 2 toughness and no saves at all, how silly of me to miss this.


Don't be silly. There was never any doubt that there are things your knights better do not charge. If there's T5 infantry with 2+ saves and ASF GW's, knights will probably not fare very well.

So knights lose to everything except for crappy, 5 point per model infantry, and even then they're not as efficient as monsters and mortars? LOL what a compelling argument.


We all know this is Fantasy we're talking about but you don't have to take that so literally. You accuse others of hypothetical scenarios and then you invent one in which the cavalry must lose...I'm not sure anyone finds that convincing.

Cavalry lose in any scenario in which they're pitted against an equal point, worthwhile unit.


Yes, perhaps. Or perhaps not. I *could* panic or kill them with a mortar hit, or two infantry units or magic or characters. Whether that is cheaper or not is contingent. The idea of creating mismatches however is a good one, and cavalry can help with that because of their mobility. Indeed one will find it more difficult to flank a Skaven host but even that is far from exotic, so width really is irrelevant. There are easy ways to disrupt a battleline.

Monsters have better mobility than knights, or you could get 2 infantry units for the cost of a single knight unit and also have more mobility. Shooting units don't need mobility. Many superior and more mobile alternatives to knights.


Neither the fact that the opposition will try the same nor the fact that it won't work in some situations (extremely powerful infantry) is a serious refutation.

50/50 your infantry is better, or 100/0 that your cavalry is worse.


Strawman.

You do not know the meaning or the irony of this :D


Meaningless rhetoric with no foundation. A paltry amount of crossbows is no danger. They kill none on turn 1, the knights go 14", crossbows kill one, knights charge, lose *perhaps* one to S&S, crossbows die. My knights have earned VP, you have earned none, and the knights can easily kill a second unit.

K, crossbowmen own you at range. Then you charge into melee. But turns out they were quarrelers and own you at melee combat to. I guess the only "shooters" knights can pick on are empire archers or useless ones from other races - all decent shooters own them.


There are many units knights should not take on solo or even with support but that goes for infantry too and does not support your point I'm afraid.

Infantry can take on anything.


Nobody assumes such a thing. We assume roughly equal points.

Yeah that's why your examples are all 2vs1 beatdowns against 5 point empire soldiers. Make it 2 monsters vs knights + infantry. Make it 1 monster + 1 infantry vs infantry and knights. Even make it 2 infantry vs infantry and knights. Any equal match-up will be the same: knights lose. Big time.

Nkari
16-02-2011, 13:06
Imho, there are 3 problems with 8th edition of warhammer fantasy.. they are called
"the lore of death, the lore of shadow and the lore of life" everything else is fine..

Stat reduction should only be 1 point, Auto kill whole models should not have a template, template stuff should do 1 wound (except under the hole) so you can take WARD SAVES (like the foot of gork in the orc n goblin book).

Fix that and I love more than I do now.. and I do really like 8th just that those 3 lores is what makes it less than perfect..

Oh, and I would not mind having a charge range of Movement + D6, but I can live with Movement +2D6...

2d6
16-02-2011, 13:10
Imho, there are 3 problems with 8th edition of warhammer fantasy..

You missed True line of sight, pointless, more disputable, less tactical and opens all sorts of modelling abuse issues.

The old line of sight worked fine.

yabbadabba
16-02-2011, 13:16
and opens all sorts of modelling abuse issues. While your other points are debatable, I;d say with this one either get an agreement or find different people to play. Any form of abuse for advantage really does belittle the abuser, and significantly decreases their value as an opponent.

2d6
16-02-2011, 16:23
While your other points are debatable, I;d say with this one either get an agreement or find different people to play. Any form of abuse for advantage really does belittle the abuser, and significantly decreases their value as an opponent.

I play in a pretty good group and have no opponents trying this, but my point stands that switching to true LOS offers NO advantages whatsoever, but creates the potential for arguments and abuses, It was the single worst decision made in 8th ed IMO.

Maoriboy007
16-02-2011, 20:49
As far as the original post goes, I would say how 8th should have been done was just to stop while they were ahead or just fix what was broke and leave the rest.
They seem to have made an inverse mistake of 7th (where they didn't fix the actual problems of 6th) where in 8th they have fixed some problems but have added completely new ones.


Yes, and Monsters are far more vulnerable to cannons, bolt throwers, and very often to spells that require Initiative tests, and also more vulnerable to killer characters (my Khorne Lord will carve any monster into meaty chunks, but a challenge from an enemy knight champion can really ruin his day).Any of those things will also put a dent in most any cavalry unit as well, not much more or less vulnerable than monsters are really


Imho, there are 3 problems with 8th edition of warhammer fantasy.. they are called
"the lore of death, the lore of shadow and the lore of life" everything else is fine..
Stat reduction should only be 1 point, Auto kill whole models should not have a template, template stuff should do 1 wound (except under the hole) so you can take WARD SAVES (like the foot of gork in the orc n goblin book).

Agreed, autokill/doom spells are a stupid concept that really started with gateway and should have been fixed/erratad rather than persued, (yes I am aware that pit of shades was really the progenitor of the doom concept but Gateway gave it scope)
Being able to ward/MR them and hexes would improve the magic phase greatly.


You missed True line of sight, pointless, more disputable, less tactical and opens all sorts of modelling abuse issues.
The old line of sight worked fine.

I play in a pretty good group and have no opponents trying this, but my point stands that switching to true LOS offers NO advantages whatsoever, but creates the potential for arguments and abuses, It was the single worst decision made in 8th ed IMO.
It was really a case of not broke so why fix it, as were the old Unit strenth rules (I hate the stupid unit type rules)

Strikes in intitiave is another unessesary change if charging units gained the ASF rule on the turn they charge it would be more sensible. ASF should't give re-rolls either.

decker_cky
16-02-2011, 21:50
I was "going on about" how decker_sky's hypothetical scenario was unrealistic and proved nothing..

So you're saying that cavalry never gets a combined charge with infantry? Have you ever played Warhammer in any edition, let alone 8th? It's not guaranteed, but if you use the additional speed to maneuver, cavalry can fairly easily get flank charges.

A 100-125 pt unit of cavalry is perfect for making supporting charges. MV7 cavalry will charge 12" 95% of the time, which is outside the reliable charge range of infantry. If you combine that with infantry needing a 5 to charge, you have an 79% chance of making a combined charge (infantry alone is only 83% chance of making it), in which you will cause more casualties and have the ranks to negate steadfast. Rather than taking 3 240 pt infantry units, you could take 2 240 pt infantry units and 2 120 pt cavalry units for a much better balanced force which performs better on the battlefield. Even if those knights are shot, you'll probably still have 2-3 models left which is enough to swing a close battle by a decent amount (particularly if they're in the flank - something not too difficult for small cavalry units).

In a tournament where I decided to take a unit of 12 centigors (because they were painted), there were games where they were key - eating through a few support units early before swinging in for a supporting flank charge at a decisive point of the game. Infantry wouldn't have been able to perform the things those cavalry had. Cavalry is better against monsters and monstrous infantry, tends to be able to take a banner (eg flaming), charges faster and considerably more reliably, and is generally more resilient. In almost every game, the centigors did something useful which infantry wouldn't have been able to.

Monsters are less resilient than knights aside from hydras and treemen, and those have saves which are often negated (flaming/magical attacks). Aside from hydras and abominations, monsters are generally pretty expensive for what they bring. No current monster has swiftstride (arachnarok will), making their charges unreliable.

Does cavalry make linebreaking solo charges still? Rarely. Doesn't mean they aren't still very useful.

R Man
16-02-2011, 22:13
I was "going on about" how decker_sky's hypothetical scenario was unrealistic and proved nothing.

Then you failed. Your argument was nonsensical and had no real relation to the post.


Monsters have better toughness and better saves. They are more resilient to all type of fire and spells except for cannons and Death Lore sniper spells. Heavy cavalry are the most vulnerable unit you can get when you look at their cost. You ever play someone who fields GUNPOWDER WEAPONRY? It is this entirely new tactic to field such things, you must play someone using it and get back to me.

What monsters are we talking about? Monstrous Infantry like ogres is usually limited to +5 saves at best and T 4. Kroxigors are Save 4+ and T 4. Rat Ogres are only T 4, though I don't know what their save is. Minotaurs are T 4 and so on and so on.

But perhaps you mean big monsters. Like the amazing Hippogryph with it's amazing T 5 and no armour. Which I think is exactly the same as the Imperial Gryphon. The Carnosaur does better, it has a + 4 save to go with it's T 5. I believe that the Varghulf has no save, but it does have re-gen. Giants too tend to have a **** poor save. Now there are some monsters that do have very good Saves and T, Stegadons, Treemen, Hydra's and of course Dragons. But there not the only monsters.


Ya cuz I reeeeeally care about your hypothetical scenario enough that I'm willing to "prove it" when in fact all the scenario's components are at the whim of your arguments needs. I propose this scenario: 50 thunderers vs 10 knights and some lightly armoured infantry, who wins and why?

What Hypothetical Scenario? I was asking about the claims YOU made. Thus there would be no scenario opponents or whims. PS: 50 Thunderers will cost 700 points. No wonder the knights have difficulty wining. Unless they'd be 70 points each. What formations are they in? 50 Shooters are unlikely to go into a unit together, unless that unit was 25 men long, or was willing to compromise it's shooting ability.


Actually infantry wins there as well. You ever heard of great weapons? Any infantry unit with those will destroy your knight unit, regardless of how many times you flank them. On the off chance that you do manage to flank 5 point infantry with S3, T3, 5+ AS, you're simply overwhelming a 240 point unit with 540 points of your own units. Could've done the same thing with less, much less. And while your massive 540 points of units are "combined charging" some helpless throw away unit, your enemies are concentrating their own forces on your special and rare choices. Enjoy having all your monsters shot to dead by cannons that the enemy afforded by not buying cavalry, and your own cavalry shot to dead by any gunpowder soldiers. Even crossbows own knights.

Except not all infantry can take GW's. Adding Great Weapons also weakens their armour, and drives the cost up. They are good things in long battles, but they do have disadvantages. Not necessarily against cavalry, but they are not an instant win.

Wait? What was that? It takes more points to decisively defeat a set amount of points! WOW! I never would have guessed. And I was amazed to discover that High Elves, Lizardmen, Bretonnians, Tomb Kings, Beastmen, Wood Elves and Orcs had discovered Gunpowder. And amazing part of the army lists that don't acutally exist. PS: Crossbows aren't that great.


Too bad the knights lose out on great weapons. Pit 2000 points of black knights against 1000 points of Grave Guard w/ gw's, see who wins (it's the grave guard). Oh but black knights can flank! Yeah totall worthwhile. Not. I could simply buy twice as many grave guard and DOUBLE FLANK w/ them instead. In fact it would even be easier since my battle line would be wider. 'Nuff said.

As noted before GW drive up the cost of the model and compromise their defenses. That is of great importance in wider battle. PS: Why are the two fighting each other? Since when has this been a good test? Why not put them up against an enemy that your likely to fight? Like Empire, Orcs, Skaven etc.


Rhetoric, mobility doesn't matter when your mobile guys get shot and killed by a paltry amount of shooters, or when their mobility doesn't matter 'cause you're outnumbered due to spending 10% of your points on a monster wannabe.

No! It is fact! PP 82 of the Big Red Book under the cavalry section states that cavalry has the Swiftstride special rule.

On page 76:

Swiftstride reads that models with the rule may roll an extra d6 for fleeing, pursing and charging and discard the lowest.

Cavalry are in fact statistically advantaged to faster movement beyond their higher stats and pursuit is now essential as you need to destroy units utterly to get the points for them.

And PS: Cavalry are generally more resistant per point, to missile fire than infantry.


I can understand that you have a certain idea of how WH should play but do us all a favour and stop calling perfectly valid and practically tested arguments rhetoric when you base your opinion on such absurd prerequisites. If I spent 240 points on cavalry, I can easily have two or more infantry regiments to outrank a deathstar. Surely athat deathstar costs a lot more than 240 points.

The problem is that you haven't really supported your argument at all. You've made some claims that are demonstratively false. You also fail to account for practical concerns.


So knights lose to everything except for crappy, 5 point per model infantry, and even then they're not as efficient as monsters and mortars? LOL what a compelling argument.

The irony being 5 knights are actually very efficient, against mortars.


Cavalry lose in any scenario in which they're pitted against an equal point, worthwhile unit.


Head to head yes (depending on the actual units in question). However the whole point of cavalry is not to go head to head.


Monsters have better mobility than knights, or you could get 2 infantry units for the cost of a single knight unit and also have more mobility. Shooting units don't need mobility. Many superior and more mobile alternatives to knights.

Actually they don't. Some do have fly, but most lack flying, as well as swift stride rules. And mobility is very important for archers. If you'd ever played Wood Elves you should know this. There is no way to catch shooter with infantry. They just run away and rally again.


50/50 your infantry is better, or 100/0 that your cavalry is worse.

A statement that you have totally failed to explain or elaborate on. Why is this so? Under what circumstanced did you reach this conclusion?


K, crossbowmen own you at range. Then you charge into melee. But turns out they were quarrelers and own you at melee combat to. I guess the only "shooters" knights can pick on are empire archers or useless ones from other races - all decent shooters own them.

1stly, quarrelers are easy to identify. They are crossbowmen in a dwarf army. Its obvious. Second of all they don't actually own much at all, and they are very expensive. Knights will beat them. Not quickly but they can do it. Third of all I know of no shooters that are equal to Dwarves in combat. Maybe Repeater Crossbowmen. Most armies like Lizardmen, Empire, High Elves, Wood Elves, Orcs and Brets have soft 'missile' troops.


Infantry can take on anything.

Actually most shooters will own infantry in a vacuum (again depending on the units in question. Mostly because they can flee when the infantry charge and re-group to continue shooting.


Yeah that's why your examples are all 2vs1 beatdowns against 5 point empire soldiers. Make it 2 monsters vs knights + infantry. Make it 1 monster + 1 infantry vs infantry and knights. Even make it 2 infantry vs infantry and knights. Any equal match-up will be the same: knights lose. Big time.

If your so sure of it, provide an example. Like what units are actually being used here? What actually happens on this battle field? Unless you actually provide a description claims like this are useless.

Haravikk
16-02-2011, 23:08
K, so how is this not 8th edition's fault? It could've easily re-done the stats and costs for cavalry in the BRB's reference section. But it didn't. Now cavalry will be useless for next 5 years. That's a pretty big flaw tbh.
I said they may be over-costed, but not all cavalry are right now, and most are still very competitive anyway. If 8th edition was intended to work perfectly with every existing army book then it'd just have been a reprint of 7th edition; to make changes some things are going to end up needing tweaked down the line, but on the whole points costs haven't been too badly hit.


Okay, so I can either have a 50/50 chance that my infantry army defeats the enemies replica of my infantry army in an arbitrary duel, OR, I can have a 30/70 chance that my cavalry/infantry army will win... decisions decisions........
With the right tactics the cavalry + infantry versus infantry + infantry are more likely the 70/30 or better. Sure, since you clearly have no idea how to use cavalry in 8th then maybe you will only have a 30% chance of success, but I see games all the time that are proving you completely wrong, as effective cavalry use is still powerful in 8th, if you know what you're doing.

dinobot
17-02-2011, 00:51
I said they may be over-costed, but not all cavalry are right now, and most are still very competitive anyway. If 8th edition was intended to work perfectly with every existing army book then it'd just have been a reprint of 7th edition; to make changes some things are going to end up needing tweaked down the line, but on the whole points costs haven't been too badly hit.

They could've easily fixed the imperfectness via errata's or by simply editing unit stats in the BRB's reference section. They did not, and now there is no internal balance for many army books. I gotta wait 5 years just so cavalry don't suck anymore.


With the right tactics the cavalry + infantry versus infantry + infantry are more likely the 70/30 or better. Sure, since you clearly have no idea how to use cavalry in 8th then maybe you will only have a 30% chance of success, but I see games all the time that are proving you completely wrong, as effective cavalry use is still powerful in 8th, if you know what you're doing.

100 grave guard vs. 100 empire knights and 100 empire swordsmen. The empire army costs 3 times more, and it will still lose 100% of the time, no matter how many "flanks" you think you'll get.


Then you failed. Your argument was nonsensical and had no real relation to the post.

I do not read posts that attempt to troll me. Looks like it is you who have failed.


So you're saying that cavalry never gets a combined charge with infantry? Have you ever played Warhammer in any edition, let alone 8th? It's not guaranteed, but if you use the additional speed to maneuver, cavalry can fairly easily get flank charges.

Once again my "debate" opponents attempt to misportray my opinions. I said that your particular scenario was unrealistic because it assumed that one player would make a list consisting of a mere 240 point light infantry unit, while the other player would build a list with a grand total of 480 points. Just for laughs, lets try the same scenario but this time I get to choose the infantry you are fighting. No, it is not pathetic Empire swordsmen as you were hoping, no, these infantry are grave guard with great weapons. They end up owning all your units cause evidently you were banking on flank charges to beat them. Any infantry that's more than 8 points will destroy your knight/infantry combined charge, and they will do so at half the total unit value. You cannot argue with this fact, run while you still can.


A 100-125 pt unit of cavalry

That's an aweful lot to pay for a mere 2 combat res. In comparison you could take the warbanner for 25 points and it gives half of that. Better choice would be monster that gets 5 kills, and 7 combat res. (assuming it has the same ability to get flank charge).


In a tournament where I decided to take a unit of 12 centigors (because they were painted), there were games where they were key - eating through a few support units early before swinging in for a supporting flank charge at a decisive point of the game.

My argument was never that they don't provide any benefit at all, but rather that they're not the optimal choice. I don't know about the so-called beastman book but the VC book it is far superior to buy a 175 point varghulf over a 280 point unit of 10 knights... this is because varghulf generates more combat res. even without breaking ranks and also he is better at getting flank charges. Perhaps the beastmen do not get monsters (although given their name I find it hard to imagine) but for every other army there is a better option.....


Monsters are less resilient than knights aside from hydras and treemen, and those have saves which are often negated (flaming/magical attacks). Aside from hydras and abominations, monsters are generally pretty expensive for what they bring. No current monster has swiftstride (arachnarok will), making their charges unreliable.

Last I checked the varghulf and the skaven monsters were also more resilient. Only the Giant stands out as being a bad monster. I would not call them expensive, nearly all have the same ability as cavalry to flank charge, and the only thing they lack is the ability to break ranks... but they all generate more than 3 kills so in the end they generate more combat res. regardless (and for far lower the cost).


Does cavalry make linebreaking solo charges still? Rarely. Doesn't mean they aren't still very useful.

A zombie is useful. But it is outperformed. That is why no one takes zombies except for fluff reasons or if they're noob. Same thing goes for cavalry: have uses, but are more expensive and outperformed at those uses.

minionboy
17-02-2011, 01:42
I play in a pretty good group and have no opponents trying this, but my point stands that switching to true LOS offers NO advantages whatsoever, but creates the potential for arguments and abuses, It was the single worst decision made in 8th ed IMO.

I used to agree, but then I really thought about it. When was the last time I saw a small (20 foot or so) area with trees that I couldn't see through?

I mean this is a pretty dense picture and I can see quite a distance really, my eyes don't stop working at the tree line:
http://www.berro.com/beautiful_nature_photos_scenery/forest_road_picture_mystery.jpg

Captainbastard
17-02-2011, 01:56
Its always the vampire players who hate the new rules the most! You can see that throughout this thread.

1.They can't spend about 200 points on core troops in a 2000 point army.

2.They can't win the game by simply using one small unit of cavalry, a monster and a black coach and 1000 points of characters.

3.They can't abuse the rules so much that they get 20 power dice in the magic phase.

Now don't get me wrong. Vampires are an elite force and should have hard characters and also decent magic. But your armies were totally whak.

Surgency
17-02-2011, 03:06
I think dinobot has done an excellent job trolling everyone in this post, based on his circumstantial "evidence", lack of real math, lack of any real basis in reality, and lack of comprehension of what is basic warhammer tactics, but I'm going to go ahead and bite one more time..



100 grave guard vs. 100 empire knights and 100 empire swordsmen. The empire army costs 3 times more, and it will still lose 100% of the time, no matter how many "flanks" you think you'll get.

How about dropping 50 knights, and getting a few mages, and some mortars? All of a sudden your grave guard aren't looking to good... You consistently look for the scenario that proves that knights are horrible, and shows you to be supposedly right. This 1-1 million scenario isn't only unlikely, but also nearly impossible to face.


I do not read posts that attempt to troll me. Looks like it is you who have failed.

You also don't read posts that show where your arguements are just plain wrong. In fact, I'm thinking you don't actually read the posts at all


Once again my "debate" opponents attempt to misportray my opinions. I said that your particular scenario was unrealistic because it assumed that one player would make a list consisting of a mere 240 point light infantry unit, while the other player would build a list with a grand total of 480 points. Just for laughs, lets try the same scenario but this time I get to choose the infantry you are fighting. No, it is not pathetic Empire swordsmen as you were hoping, no, these infantry are grave guard with great weapons. They end up owning all your units cause evidently you were banking on flank charges to beat them. Any infantry that's more than 8 points will destroy your knight/infantry combined charge, and they will do so at half the total unit value. You cannot argue with this fact, run while you still can.

You're the only one misrepresenting things here. As has been said before, some units just shouldn't be charged by knights. Elite units with great weapons probably aren't always the best to charge. But then again, there's only what, 1-2 of those types of units in the army book? So we'll say 2 units per army book aren't good. And usually those units are Specials (which your grave guard are, of course), and so limited. What about the core units?

You then go on to imply that0 'outnumbering your opponent is a waste of points' When, as has been said several times by multiple posters, outnumbering is the way to guarantee success. You outnumber 1 unit by 2-1. Then the second unit is outnumbered (roughly) 3-1, 3rd unit 4-1, so on, and so on....

Speaking of, since you were charging them in the flank, your knight unit gets its full amount of attacks (first, and second ranks). How many attacks do the grave guard get? They get each model in base contact, since you're flanking them. So they have to fight twice as many models, while still holding their own. Thats one buffed up unit of grave guard, if they're able to hold that long



That's an aweful lot to pay for a mere 2 combat res. In comparison you could take the warbanner for 25 points and it gives half of that. Better choice would be monster that gets 5 kills, and 7 combat res. (assuming it has the same ability to get flank charge).

assuming the monster isn't gibbed with high strength war machines, targeted with damaging spells, targeted by ranged units, held up by skirmishers...




My argument was never that they don't provide any benefit at all


No they are completely unviable because the enemy will simply reform or redirect after combat and nothing will have been achieved.

It would be viable except for the fact that heavy cavalry are prohibitively expensive.

Assuming your cavalry hasn't already been destroyed by musket fire (and that's a big assumption btw) they are now relegated to such worthless duties as:

Knights are simply outperformed in all areas.

Now cavalry will be useless for next 5 years

Cavalry lose in any scenario in which they're pitted against an equal point, worthwhile unit.

'Nough said. You don't even know what your own arguement is...


Last I checked the varghulf and the skaven monsters were also more resilient. Only the Giant stands out as being a bad monster. I would not call them expensive, nearly all have the same ability as cavalry to flank charge, and the only thing they lack is the ability to break ranks... but they all generate more than 3 kills so in the end they generate more combat res. regardless (and for far lower the cost).

So 2 monsters, out of how many? And is it guaranteed that they all generate more than 3 kills? Cause I'd think that generating more kills (which cavalry can do) AND breaking ranks is better than hoping to get more than 3 kills


A zombie is useful. But it is outperformed. That is why no one takes zombies except for fluff reasons or if they're noob

I'm curious, since i have a pretty good idea already... How many of your victories under 7th involved charging with your Black Knights, making the unit flee based on combat res after the first rank couldn't attack back, and then running them down? I'm thinking that most of your wins involved that, since thats what you're complaining you can't do anymore.

R Man
17-02-2011, 05:50
I do not read posts that attempt to troll me. Looks like it is you who have failed.

So you admit that you did not actually read it? If you did not read it you should not have responded to it.


That's an aweful lot to pay for a mere 2 combat res. In comparison you could take the warbanner for 25 points and it gives half of that. Better choice would be monster that gets 5 kills, and 7 combat res. (assuming it has the same ability to get flank charge).

What are you basing these statistics on? Why do the knights have 2 combat res? What from? And where does the res for the monster come from? And even the cheapest large monster is going to cost 170-200 points, often more, quite a bit more than the 5 man knight hit squad which will be about 125-150.


Last I checked the varghulf and the skaven monsters were also more resilient. Only the Giant stands out as being a bad monster. I would not call them expensive, nearly all have the same ability as cavalry to flank charge, and the only thing they lack is the ability to break ranks... but they all generate more than 3 kills so in the end they generate more combat res. regardless (and for far lower the cost).

Many (though not all) are also poorer in pursuit, charging, fleeing, getting shot by cannons and the like. Many are also frailer, especially gryphons and the like. Not to mention that the cheapest monster is the game is 175 points. That's the hydra and it's cheap for what you get, but others are more like 225-270. That's a lot of points to invest in a single model. In addition, many are rare choices and take up that important % cap.

As for the rest I think Surgency answered it well enough.

dinobot
17-02-2011, 06:02
Its always the vampire players who hate the new rules the most! You can see that throughout this thread.

1.They can't spend about 200 points on core troops in a 2000 point army.

2.They can't win the game by simply using one small unit of cavalry, a monster and a black coach and 1000 points of characters.

3.They can't abuse the rules so much that they get 20 power dice in the magic phase.

Now don't get me wrong. Vampires are an elite force and should have hard characters and also decent magic. But your armies were totally whak.

Oh believe me I wasn't one of those WAAC VC players. In fact I like the fact that VC got toned way down, cuz now I am no longer grouped in with the unfluffy power gamers. What I don't like is that my book is so poorly balanced. Literally half my unit choices are simply not worthwhile... dire wolves that are no longer fast cavalry... 28 point knights... BAT SWARMS!!!! They could've easily updated the rules or point costs of some of these units... in fact, in the case of Dire Wolves their uselessnes is BECAUSE they updated their rules... why must they completely ruin such a random unit like the dire wolf, but not touch anything else? It's like they're designing this game arbitrarily, on a whim... "hey steve the boss says we must update the new units" "ok larry I have an idea, lets juwst make random changes to 1 unit per book and call it a day" "good thinking u deserve a promotion!"

silashand
17-02-2011, 07:39
I'm 99% certain that in the entire history of 6th and 7th editions a unit of 40 infantry NEVER routed 20 knights when receiving the charge!

My HE spearelves did just that in 7th against a Bretonnian lance charge. Basically my opponent wiffed, I won combat and then ran him down ;). Granted, it was 30 spearelves vs 15 KotR, but just sayin'...


And much more balanced than previous editions.

The so-called "balance" in 8th is a farce. Random elements are a poor excuse for fixing the actual problems in what could have been a more tactical and enjoyable game. Now the only way to enjoy it is simply not to care if you win or lose and frankly that's just idiotic.

Cheers, Gary

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 07:56
They could've easily updated the rules or point costs of some of these units... in fact, in the case of Dire Wolves their uselessnes is BECAUSE they updated their rules... As far back as 4th Ed (maybe 5th) I think, GW have never revised points or stats without a book release. The only thing that comes close is the old DE book upgrade, the only army book that got this treatment at the time. So no matter what the rules changes you were not going to see a change in stats or points


why must they completely ruin such a random unit like the dire wolf, but not touch anything else? It's like they're designing this game arbitrarily, on a whim... "hey steve the boss says we must update the new units" "ok larry I have an idea, lets juwst make random changes to 1 unit per book and call it a day" "good thinking u deserve a promotion!":wtf:? :rolleyes:

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 08:02
Apologies for the double post


The so-called "balance" in 8th is a farce. Random elements are a poor excuse for fixing the actual problems in what could have been a more tactical and enjoyable game. Now the only way to enjoy it is simply not to care if you win or lose and frankly that's just idiotic. There is a balance in 8th Ed, and as this was never a "fixing" edition its kind of irrelevant what could have been done to make 7th better. The balance comes within the rules themselves as there are no longer any automatic picks or tactics in the game. Each aspect has to be considered carefully. This is a more challenging edition because, in essence, math hammer gets thrown out of the window as a method of deciding efficiency. You have to go for a mix of experience, tactics and strategy. Ironically it makes it far closer
to reality than any previous edition, but there you go :D.

Lord Solar Plexus
17-02-2011, 09:23
Oh dang you're right, monsters only have 2 toughness and no saves at all, how silly of me to miss this.


Making up strawmen again, dino? You're really cracking me up with those feeble attempts to put words in my mouth. You will not find anyone apart from you who ever said that.

Your blanket statement about all monsters having better T and AS is wrong. It was just hyperbole. *Some* monsters have better T than *some* cavalry. Come on, dino, show us that all monsters have a better AS than 2 or 1+. As with everything else you say, you can't.



So knights lose to everything except for crappy, 5 point per model infantry


That is a false conclusion. How did you reach "everything is a hard counter" from "there are some hard counters"?

I don't think you can explain that properly.



Cavalry lose in any scenario in which they're pitted against an equal point, worthwhile unit.


Ah, a "worthwhile" unit. With that you mean a better unit, one well suited to fight cavalry. Yes, a better unit will probably defeat the worse. Are you really bothering us with such trivia?



Monsters have better mobility than knights, or you could get 2 infantry units for the cost of a single knight unit and also have more mobility. Shooting units don't need mobility. Many superior and more mobile alternatives to knights.


Mobile shooting units are better than comparable static ones, for example DE Crossbows/Empire Crossbows.

Monsters do not have better mobility. Again, you are making up things that anyone can look up. A HPA charges and moves 10.5" on average. Knights move 14" and charge further. It's more mobile in the sense that it can charge in every direction but then again, only a few monsters have this ability.

Two units of infantry aren't more mobile either. They're more numerous in terms of units (and models but that's besides the point). Two units of 24 Halberdiers are however not a priori better than one of 10 knights.



K, crossbowmen own you at range. Then you charge into melee. But turns out they were quarrelers and own you at melee combat to. I guess the only "shooters" knights can pick on are empire archers or useless ones from other races - all decent shooters own them.


Again you suddenly bring up many additional qualifiers that were not included in your initial assessment. Decent shooters that are better in melee than the cavalry unit in question will own cavalry. Yes, dino, everyone knew that before. Spare us such trivia. "Decent" shooters that are better in melee will own infantry as well.

Your initial statement that you conveniently forgot however was that a paltry amount of shooters will defeat knights. Again, as with your ever-changing statements on monsters and mobility, this view is objectively wrong.



Yeah that's why your examples are all 2vs1 beatdowns against 5 point empire soldiers. ... Any equal match-up will be the same: knights lose. Big time.

You seem incapable to understand the salient point. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it, who knows. All examples start with an equal number of points. The 2:1 situation can occur because of the greater mobility. The cavalry could even charge in one turn ahead. In many cases it will win the fight, front or flank. The opposing unit might not run due to being steadfast but it still will often have lost the combat. When your own infantry arrives one turn later, you will probably again win combat and now you outrank your opponent. Or you hold your cavalry back. I'm afraid it is much easier to maneouver into a flanking position with M7 or M8 than with M4/5.

Of course you can potentially do the same with two blocks of infantry but it will be harder.

Lastly, not a single one of your vague examples has had any kind of equality in mind. Your prerequisite is always that the cavalry's opposition is already better in all regards, shooting, combat, mobility doesn't matter, everyone else has either better or just as good saves as knights (!!!) and then use this highly skewed scenario to "prove" that CAV is useless. That is a textbook example of circular logic.

silashand
17-02-2011, 10:31
there are no longer any automatic picks or tactics in the game. Each aspect has to be considered carefully.

Really? When is the last time you saw a non-shooty skirmisher unit in a game lately? Or most Fast Cav? Or most cav for that matter? Heck, anything but characters, uber units, the occasional undercosted monster and war machines? Sorry, but that's all I have seen in the past few months and if that is somehow "considering carefully" the choices in the books then I think you need to redefine your terms.


Ironically it makes it far closer to reality than any previous edition, but there you go :D.

You obviously don't play historicals or read much on actual warfare in a similar period to Warhammer. The vast majority of casualties caused in a battle were invariable due to one side breaking and being cut down, ala every previous edition of the rules *except* 8th edition. The current steadfast/hack & slash mechanism bears absolutely no relation to reality, nor do current charge vs flee movements, etc., nor does it even remotely resemble anything even remotely resembling tactics because the vastly increased randomness in the game insures that such things play second fiddle to standing back and watching dice decide everything now. Meh.

Cheers, Gary

R Man
17-02-2011, 12:00
Really? When is the last time you saw a non-shooty skirmisher unit in a game lately? Or most Fast Cav? Or most cav for that matter? Heck, anything but characters, uber units, the occasional undercosted monster and war machines? Sorry, but that's all I have seen in the past few months and if that is somehow "considering carefully" the choices in the books then I think you need to redefine your terms.

I get the feeling though that this is more due to the army books lagging behind than the actual rules in the BRB. A lot of units that needed it did get a boost, such as the much maligned Imperial Halberds, Orc Boyz and Azer Boys, Dwarf Warriors and the like, who were often cannon fodder. Elite units weren't left out either getting a boost. Monsters and shooters were compensated to keep up, monsters got stomp and missile troops can shoot in more ranks. Cavalry got a nerf (which in many cases was much needed) but like shooters can now concentrate force better thanks to second rank attacks. Not so good alone but they combine well.

Of these units some are obviously useless, but most are still functional and could easily be effective with a simple points drop. I think what 8th allowed units to do is stand up based on the function of it's type, rather than a direct comparison of points value. This means that units may still serve a function that makes them valuable even if normally considered too expensive.

Sadly, Light Cavalry and melee skirmishers are not among these units.

2d6
17-02-2011, 12:13
nor does it even remotely resemble anything even remotely resembling tactics because the vastly increased randomness in the game insures that such things play second fiddle to standing back and watching dice decide everything now. Meh.

Cheers, Gary
The new random movement still involves heavy use of tactics and strategy, just a different kind than before.

4th through 7th, judging distances and getting the charge were all important, and done well typically led to breaking units on the charge with little risk of getting bogged down out of position.

The new rules mean the overall position and composition of you're entire battle line has become more important than the position and composition of individual units.

Charging in general has much less advantage than before, so failing one charge on a bad dice roll should not cripple a solid battle plan, if it does, deciding to charge in the first place could well have been a mistake.

Now ensuring your battle line is favourably matched to the opponents battle line, having sufficient backup in place in the areas where your line may be weak and making the best use of areas where you have your opponent overmatched all play important roles in the new strategy of the game.

Just because YOU can't see the strategy, don't mean it's not there.

Haravikk
17-02-2011, 12:42
They could've easily fixed the imperfectness via errata's or by simply editing unit stats in the BRB's reference section. They did not, and now there is no internal balance for many army books. I gotta wait 5 years just so cavalry don't suck anymore.
Perhaps, but they haven't fixed anyone's problems with the errata, they've focused on things that make specific rules break in 8th, the errata so far haven't focused on balance issues, and given the quick turn-around for Tomb Kings it seems GW is aiming to update all army-books as quickly as possible rather than burdening the errata writers with balance issues for every army.

Does it suck? Sure, but it's no worse than the Flame Cannons now being 140 points for a 70 point war machine, or the Gyrocopter being 140 points of probably no march blocking at all as well as being burdened with partials because the army book says they have them.
Everyone's got something that isn't perfectly balanced right now, and to be honest that was the case before 8th edition anyway as no army book has ever got an army spot-on. If you feel that the extra points for cavalry are better spent on more infantry, then spend them on more infantry. But over-costed or not a lot of cavalry is still very competitive...


100 grave guard vs. 100 empire knights and 100 empire swordsmen. The empire army costs 3 times more, and it will still lose 100% of the time, no matter how many "flanks" you think you'll get.
...especially if you don't do something stupid like charge 100 grave guard with units that aren't well suited to fighting them. That said in your particular scenario, the Empire player could still win just fine, as Swordsmen will certainly take a beating but with the damage from the knights tipping things in their favour they'll most likely hold while the Grave Guard succumb.
It's a completely absurd scenario however as with 100 knights I could merrily go around crushing every other unit in your army and just shoot or magic the crap out of the grave guard or leave them stuck in place against a much cheaper unit till I get around to beating them.

Also, Grave Guard are 12 points each not 8, so they're fairly expensive. I mean the Swordsmen unit is already half the points cost, sure a unit of 100 knights could easily take the points over, but if you were being more realistic you might take 100 Swordsmen, with two units of 12 or 13 Knightly Orders. That's a block of decently protected Swordsmen with better Weapon Skill, they'll get creamed but not badly enough that they'll flee unless the Empire player's particular unlucky. Meanwhile the knights can just pop onto both flanks, or a flank and the rear and add a lot of pain onto the Grave Guard, and have a good enough save that they can even survive against Strength 6, a better Weapon Skill meaning less hits, and even if some are killed they still only give one combat res each. With units of 12 or 13 you'll also have lost any rank bonus, so in each combat that things don't go your way you'll be losing models to crumbling as well. It's certainly touch and go but it's hardly a 100% loss rate, in fact it's a lot closer to even than you think, especially if the cavalry take Great Weapons so that they're Strength 5 every round.

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 12:56
Really? When is the last time you saw a non-shooty skirmisher unit in a game lately? Or most Fast Cav? Or most cav for that matter? Heck, anything but characters, uber units, the occasional undercosted monster and war machines? Sorry, but that's all I have seen in the past few months and if that is somehow "considering carefully" the choices in the books then I think you need to redefine your terms. Not really. I use fast cavalry and cavalry. Sounds like you play in a dysfunctional gaming environment, do you? Is there an over emphasis on tournament style play?


You obviously don't play historicals or read much on actual warfare in a similar period to Warhammer. I stopped reading here, because this is so blatantly a stupid comment the rest just doesn't deserve debate. Try asking next time, before accusing :rolleyes:

WarmbloodedLizard
17-02-2011, 13:15
Your blanket statement about all monsters having better T and AS is wrong. It was just hyperbole. *Some* monsters have better T than *some* cavalry. Come on, dino, show us that all monsters have a better AS than 2 or 1+. As with everything else you say, you can't.


it is pretty clear that he doesn't mean eagles when he talks about monsters and that blanket statements are always hyperbolic. (even this one ;))

-monsters almost always have a higher T than knights. (T5/6 vs. T3/4)
-monsters often have similar or slightly worse saves. (3+/4+, Regen, etc.)
-monsters also usually deal equal or more damage than knights

the essence of this argument is that under 8th ed monsters are usually more survivable/efficient than knights.

more on topic: I agree with most things dinobot, maoriboy and 2D6 said.

Captainbastard
17-02-2011, 14:52
Oh believe me I wasn't one of those WAAC VC players. In fact I like the fact that VC got toned way down, cuz now I am no longer grouped in with the unfluffy power gamers. What I don't like is that my book is so poorly balanced. Literally half my unit choices are simply not worthwhile... dire wolves that are no longer fast cavalry... 28 point knights... BAT SWARMS!!!! They could've easily updated the rules or point costs of some of these units... in fact, in the case of Dire Wolves their uselessnes is BECAUSE they updated their rules... why must they completely ruin such a random unit like the dire wolf, but not touch anything else? It's like they're designing this game arbitrarily, on a whim... "hey steve the boss says we must update the new units" "ok larry I have an idea, lets juwst make random changes to 1 unit per book and call it a day" "good thinking u deserve a promotion!"

I agree that VC needs an update. The main thing is that they used to be overcosted because they cause fear. Now psychology is slightly less OTT, its possible that the main blocks of things like skeletons could go down a point or two I suppose. The cost of knights is also going down in Orcs and Goblins, so it will probably go down in most armies eventually. However, a lot of players say this at the start of a new edition. If the army books get updated I do not see the problem.

Captainbastard
17-02-2011, 14:57
Making up strawmen again, dino? You're really cracking me up with those feeble attempts to put words in my mouth. You will not find anyone apart from you who ever said that.

Your blanket statement about all monsters having better T and AS is wrong. It was just hyperbole. *Some* monsters have better T than *some* cavalry. Come on, dino, show us that all monsters have a better AS than 2 or 1+. As with everything else you say, you can't.



That is a false conclusion. How did you reach "everything is a hard counter" from "there are some hard counters"?

I don't think you can explain that properly.



Ah, a "worthwhile" unit. With that you mean a better unit, one well suited to fight cavalry. Yes, a better unit will probably defeat the worse. Are you really bothering us with such trivia?



Mobile shooting units are better than comparable static ones, for example DE Crossbows/Empire Crossbows.

Monsters do not have better mobility. Again, you are making up things that anyone can look up. A HPA charges and moves 10.5" on average. Knights move 14" and charge further. It's more mobile in the sense that it can charge in every direction but then again, only a few monsters have this ability.

Two units of infantry aren't more mobile either. They're more numerous in terms of units (and models but that's besides the point). Two units of 24 Halberdiers are however not a priori better than one of 10 knights.



Again you suddenly bring up many additional qualifiers that were not included in your initial assessment. Decent shooters that are better in melee than the cavalry unit in question will own cavalry. Yes, dino, everyone knew that before. Spare us such trivia. "Decent" shooters that are better in melee will own infantry as well.

Your initial statement that you conveniently forgot however was that a paltry amount of shooters will defeat knights. Again, as with your ever-changing statements on monsters and mobility, this view is objectively wrong.



You seem incapable to understand the salient point. Or perhaps you do not want to understand it, who knows. All examples start with an equal number of points. The 2:1 situation can occur because of the greater mobility. The cavalry could even charge in one turn ahead. In many cases it will win the fight, front or flank. The opposing unit might not run due to being steadfast but it still will often have lost the combat. When your own infantry arrives one turn later, you will probably again win combat and now you outrank your opponent. Or you hold your cavalry back. I'm afraid it is much easier to maneouver into a flanking position with M7 or M8 than with M4/5.

Of course you can potentially do the same with two blocks of infantry but it will be harder.

Lastly, not a single one of your vague examples has had any kind of equality in mind. Your prerequisite is always that the cavalry's opposition is already better in all regards, shooting, combat, mobility doesn't matter, everyone else has either better or just as good saves as knights (!!!) and then use this highly skewed scenario to "prove" that CAV is useless. That is a textbook example of circular logic.

The only person making srawman arguments is yourself. You have not backed up your arguments at all and the assinine arguments that you make are not worth humouring.

SilverDraich
17-02-2011, 18:29
After reading about 6 pages of responses to the topic at hand i believe to have found a solution for the problem of realism presented when a strong unit flees before a more weak but numerous unit. It isn't logic for a disciplined unit os soldiers to flee without recieving casualties just because the other unit is bigger. So afer giving it some thought i realized that if a small unit makes a lot of wounds an the other big unit does no wounds, then no steadfast should apply but apply all other bonuses for ranks and standards, etc. Or if any unit does three or four times the amount of wounds than the other, then steadfast should be cancelled. If used with 2 small elite units vs one big steadfast unit, then 2 units should be able to cancel steadfast. This would force to upgrade in some way this big units so they can do some wounds back so they can retain steadfas, bringing some degree of strategy back to the game and a use for small elite units or cavalry.
What do you guy think of this, i think it could work to balance out the game. If it in fact works i think just a simple FAQ could update the rulebook without having to wait for a whole new edition.

dinobot
17-02-2011, 19:02
However, a lot of players say this at the start of a new edition. If the army books get updated I do not see the problem.

But what seperates this update from the 6th -> 7th update is that the changes are much more dramatic, and so the imbalance within army books is much more pronounced. That is why I think this should've been the catalyst for GW to start updating army-specific rules via the BRB or errata's. And also, like others, I think there are inherent flaws in the BRB that can't be cleared up through point adjustment; mainly magic, but also true line of sight, terrain movement rules and steadfast. That is why I would deem this edition a downgrade, and declare GW to be inept at balance.

silashand
17-02-2011, 19:36
Not really. I use fast cavalry and cavalry. Sounds like you play in a dysfunctional gaming environment, do you? Is there an over emphasis on tournament style play?

Define over emphasis? If that's what people like then that's what people emphasize. There is no "over" emphasis unless it's something a person doesn't like. Besides, you don't have to be a tournament player to like competitive gameplay. Unfortunately that seems to be the automatic assumption for anyone who wants to dismiss complaints about 8th edition.


I stopped reading here, because this is so blatantly a stupid comment the rest just doesn't deserve debate. Try asking next time, before accusing :rolleyes:

You made the comment that 8th edition was more realistic ("You have to go for a mix of experience, tactics and strategy. Ironically it makes it far closer to reality than any previous edition"). I provided evidence proving your statement false in the form of examples that the "tactics" available in 8th edition do no even remotely resemble those used in real life, i.e. attrition, breaking, etc. IMO if you make such a statement to begin with then either you don't klnow how historical battles played out or you are being deliberately false. Either one is not an appropriate argument in this discussion.

Cheers, Gary

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 19:42
But what seperates this update from the 6th -> 7th update is that the changes are much more dramatic, and so the imbalance within army books is much more pronounced. And? Its not the only time WFB has gone through a big change, and the world didn't end then either. WFB players as a whole have managed fine with the inbuilt imbalances in the game. The 6th-7th update looked more like a reprint in comparison.


That is why I think this should've been the catalyst for GW to start updating army-specific rules via the BRB or errata's. Which GW have been doing - they just don't touch statlines or points.


And also, like others, I think there are inherent flaws in the BRB that can't be cleared up through point adjustment; mainly magic, but also true line of sight, terrain movement rules and steadfast. That is why I would deem this edition a downgrade, and declare GW to be inept at balance. You are entitled to your opinion of course. In addition history proves that GW has never been that worried about balance in either 40K or WFB - so actually I think there is also a call to crotocise those who still play the game and still moan about balance. But thats another thread. Without a specific 8e army book assessing impacts of the rules changes are fairly pointless.

Howver to you; why are you here? You don't care about WFB, you care about a tournament class, balanced game system which WFB never has been, and I hope never will be. So what do you gain from even discussing this? Wouldn't it be more productive to go and find something else to play, or just keep playing 7th Ed? It would be interesting to see what you are hoping to achieve.

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 19:48
Define over emphasis? If that's what people like then that's what people emphasize. There is no "over" emphasis unless it's something a person doesn't like. Besides, you don't have to be a tournament player to like competitive gameplay. Unfortunately that seems to be the automatic assumption for anyone who wants to dismiss complaints about 8th edition. So, is there an over emphasis on competitive play? Or, to make you slightly more happier, do you and your gaming group only play in tournament type, competitive play style?


You made the comment that 8th edition was more realistic ("You have to go for a mix of experience, tactics and strategy. Ironically it makes it far closer to reality than any previous edition"). I provided evidence proving your statement false in the form of examples that the "tactics" available in 8th edition do no even remotely resemble those used in real life, i.e. attrition, breaking, etc. IMO if you make such a statement to begin with then either you don't klnow how historical battles played out or you are being deliberately false. Either one is not an appropriate argument in this discussion.Again, lets accuse before asking eh? Well maybe you will learn one day. My comment on reality is "You have to go for a mix of experience, tactics and strategy. Ironically it makes it far closer to reality than any previous edition" - as in looking at those three things in unison now, instead of an instant win, cookie cutter internet army list. Any army commander will look at all three of these things something which, in my opinion, was not needed in the previous edition, choices were obvious. Of course if you choose to look at those three in isolation then of course you can nitpick.

RanaldLoec
17-02-2011, 19:50
Yabbadabba I have to completely agree, chasing balance in WFB is like chasing a greased up guy out of goldmens pharmacy your never going to get what you want.

WFB is far better suited to "beer and pretzels" players enjoying a game.

silashand
17-02-2011, 20:02
Howver to you; why are you here? You don't care about WFB, you care about a tournament class, balanced game system which WFB never has been, and I hope never will be.

This wasn't directed at me, but I will answer for myself. Personally, IMO the idea that Warhammer should not or could not be a "tournament class" system is absolutely false. Other companies such as Privateer Press have proven that such things can be, yet still retain the fluff element that other players like. Warhammer is by definition a "war" game. While there are many different types of games out there, the simple fact that you are attempting to defeat your opponent using primarily skill rather than luck (like Yahtzee or some other such games) means there should be some semblance of balance in the system and that it "should" work well in a competitive environment. That GW continues to promote the idea that theirs should be played differently not only goes against the idea of what a war game is, it does a disservice to players who want such a contest.

While GW seem to think otherwise, this does not invalidate the fluff element they wish to promote or the idea that armies should look like armies on the tabletop. The two are not mutually exclusive, you just have to use different mechanisms to balance them. In my experience playing other systems I find it is far better to have a clean, balanced system that works competitively and then to add in the fluff elements rather than starting with the first and then barely even bothering with the first which is what GW does. One of the reason many historical games like Napoleonics, ECW, ACW, etc. use scenarios is to prevent people from simply bringing unrealistic armies to the table in order to win. However, those aren't the only means of establishing balance.

Unfortunately in GW games there seems to be a rift between those who want competition and those who want a laid back game which has resulted ina situation of ne'er the twain shall meet so to speak. IMO it is the latter group who has done more to harm the game than the tournament players because they seem to me to be the ones refusing to admit that there is any other way to play the game than theirs. While tournament players are generally happy to let people play however they want, it is the fluff side that seems to feel they need to tell others how they have to enjoy the game. That is just my experience anyway and with the advent of 8th edition it has driven away a lot of otherwise positive people in the hobby. If that's a good thing in yours and some others' opinion then I think you are being a bit shortsighted. JMO though.

Cheers, Gary

Ultimate Life Form
17-02-2011, 20:09
I certainly agree that making Warhammer suitable for tournaments definitely won't do any harm; While you can play a competition oriented game in a friendly atmosphere as well, the reverse does not necessarily hold true. I've had a great time with MtG for well over ten years despite it being tournament oriented for the very reason of not going to tournaments - I fail to see how adding an additional option would in any way 'deprive' the game of something it previously had (to avoid sexual metaphors here), and a balanced, well-flowing game is always a good thing to have.

silashand
17-02-2011, 20:10
So, is there an over emphasis on competitive play? Or, to make you slightly more happier, do you and your gaming group only play in tournament type, competitive play style?

Since we are playing this back and forth game and I don't particularly want to debate the issue of what "over" means, yes, the groups I play in generally tend to play competively.


Again, lets accuse before asking eh? Well maybe you will learn one day. My comment on reality is "You have to go for a mix of experience, tactics and strategy. Ironically it makes it far closer to reality than any previous edition" - as in looking at those three things in unison now, instead of an instant win, cookie cutter internet army list. Any army commander will look at all three of these things something which, in my opinion, was not needed in the previous edition, choices were obvious. Of course if you choose to look at those three in isolation then of course you can nitpick.

While you may complain about my accusatory tone, your condescension does not actually help your argument ;-). Anyway, point dropped.

However, as to your explanation I disagree entirely. 8th edition has done nothing to eliminate the internet cookie cutter lists. To the contrary it has made it even worse. All you have to do is look at last year's Ard Boyz events and the armies the winners brought for proof. How exactly does plopping Teclis and 100 Phoenix Guard into a folding tower and then spending the entire game blasting your opponent with magic equate to using all the three things you list in combination? Or running a suicide mage across the table on turn one and purple sun the entire enemy line, killing 2/3 of them in one casting? If that's more realistic tactics, using experience and/or strategy I personally don't see it at all. In my own personal opinion, the three elements you list were FAR more necessary in the last edition than this one. Skill has been relegated a back seat to luck and poor game design if you ask me. JMO though.


While you can play a competition oriented game in a friendly atmosphere as well, the reverse does not necessarily hold true.

In my opinion this is the root of the entire issue and those who think 8th is the better edition seem not to understand this. Because GW listened to them this go around they have alienated a significant portion of their player base, far more so than any edition change in the past from what I can tell. I do not in any way think that decision was good for the hobby as a whole. To the contrary I think it is harming it far more than GW or these players realize.

Cheers, Gary

WarmbloodedLizard
17-02-2011, 20:21
I get extremely annoyed when I read stuff like "You don't care about WFB, you care about a tournament class, balanced game system which WFB never has been, and I hope never will be." or "WFB is far better suited to "beer and pretzels" players enjoying a game. "

just because that is GWs or your opinion doesn't give you the right the tell other people to play a different game. we are still customers and customers are the ones allowed to complain about short-comings in the system.

And someone HOPING that WFB never becomes a balanced system just blows my mind... what is your reasoning behind that? How can anyone prefer imbalance over balance.

Balance in WFB is always made out to be some unachievable goal when it really isn't. we're not looking for chess-like balance... we just want a system that is roughly balanced. It would not be too hard to do that with proper playtesting. blatant things like the magic system, TLoS, Daemons or uberspells would just not happen if GW would listen to playtest groups.

GW is just being lazy because they can get away with it, and this attitude should not be excusable or even supported. Even a beer and prezels game should be balanced.

EDIT: what silashand said.

dinobot
17-02-2011, 20:23
And? Its not the only time WFB has gone through a big change, and the world didn't end then either. WFB players as a whole have managed fine with the inbuilt imbalances in the game. The 6th-7th update looked more like a reprint in comparison.

You're excusing GW's current incompetance because they have a history of it. That's a poor argument, and essentially you're supporting the post you're replying to by making it.


so actually I think there is also a call to crotocise those who still play the game and still moan about balance.

In other words, there's "a call to criticise" people who have informed opinions. Would you prefer the alternative - whiners who have no experience?



Howver to you; why are you here? You don't care about WFB, you care about a tournament class, balanced game system which WFB never has been, and I hope never will be. So what do you gain from even discussing this? Wouldn't it be more productive to go and find something else to play, or just keep playing 7th Ed? It would be interesting to see what you are hoping to achieve.

What does anyone gain from discussing anything? The whole internet is filled with inane discussions that go nowhere, and in fact you're contributing to one right now. This thread, and in fact this forum, is essentially pointless since it doesn't contribute to anything. And from a philosophical standpoint, the whole universe is pointless since it ultimately doesn't contribute to anything either (that we know of). I mean, universe begins -> arbitrary stuff happens -> universe implodes -> repeat for eternity... am I missing something?

Anyways, my point is that your appeal to motive could easily be turned around on you and frankly this discussion doesn't benefit from it being brought up. It's simply an attempt to exchange negative energy...

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 20:34
snip Lets ask things another way: whats wrong with leaving a product to do what it was designed for, the way it was designed. Then people who want to use it another way accept that they are using that product in a different way, adapt it to their own specifications, and then play away happy?

Turning Silas' point around, in my experience people who are happy playing the game as it is find are absolutely happy for tournaments and tournament players to exist; what they find hard to understand or accept is why something they love has to be changed to suit a market that the product they originally got involved with quite clearly wasn't designed for. They find it difficult to accept is that someone turns up with an army that doesn't reflect the background, then get their backside handed to them and advised on what is "wrong" with their army and why they lost.

I find that "competitive" players can't understand that some people are happy playing with imbalance, some people are happy playing in the style GW are pushing, and that there are more suitable rules systems out there to fulfill any competitive need. They are just as narrow sighted as the most fanatical fluff nazi.

There is an element of hypocrisy here. I have been playing for a long time, far too long. I now see "competitive" players complaining about a change they have to endure, while insisting that a change I, and others like me, would have to endure (and we did in part under 6/7th) would be good for me, others and everyone else.

Please play competitve games - I have no problem with that. In fact in an ideal world I would love GW to bring out a basic beginner/tournament ruleset and simple army lists version, with the real version including the full breadth of the hobby. But accept that currently what you are doing is, in effect, creating a set of houserules to adapt something to the way you want to play, and that while there is nothing wrong with that, it doesn't mean that they should be accepted as a standard for all to play by.

decker_cky
17-02-2011, 20:35
Really? When is the last time you saw a non-shooty skirmisher unit in a game lately? Or most Fast Cav? Or most cav for that matter? Heck, anything but characters, uber units, the occasional undercosted monster and war machines? Sorry, but that's all I have seen in the past few months and if that is somehow "considering carefully" the choices in the books then I think you need to redefine your terms.

At a completely uncomped tournament 2 weekend ago, the player who came in second for battle points had dark riders and cold one knights. He did a good job using combined arms, which is how you should have to use those units for success.

One player built his list around a huge unit of 12 outriders that would get boosted by magic. It was the kind of list that you look at and think he's being silly, then he starts tearing apart a unit per turn and you're shocked.

As to non-shooty skirmishers, they have shooting but I wouldn't consider them shooty, but I regularly take ungor raiders to great effect.

Another player was running a surprisingly effective list based on units of 20 clanrats and slaves. He had a few uber units supporting them, but it was a tough list to play against because he could set up all the key charges.

Honestly, there was much more variety in lists than 7th edition tournaments tended to have. About the only army that was there a ton with similar lists was Warriors of Chaos, which all seemed to have a general build of warriors, marauders with great weapons and throgg trolls.

In three tournaments since I started 8th edition, I've seen most armies played and tons of different lists.

Maoriboy007
17-02-2011, 20:41
Its always the vampire players who hate the new rules the most! You can see that throughout this thread.
Actually is the same VC player multiple times really :D
VC did get hit pretty hard by the new rules, mostly because of the vocal hate (both deserved and undeserved) lumped on them throughout 7th that obviously filtered through to this edition and the general feeling amongst those VC players (especially the non WAAC players) is that the depowering didn't get shared around as evenly as it perhaps should have been.


1.They can't spend about 200 points on core troops in a 2000 point army.??? VC certainly weren't the only army taking low /minimum core in favour of elite units.
VC core was pretty sucky without a lot of character and magic support the unfortunatly broken fear rule being thier saving grace.
Fear is fairly useless now , rather than depowered as we had hoped, all of the core choices apart from ghouls and maybe skeletons have basically been made redundant while still being priced for thier previous advantage. The more elite selections are pretty much the same just to a lesser degree.


2.They can't win the game by simply using one small unit of cavalry, a monster and a black coach and 1000 points of characters..Firstly, VC were hardly alone in this respect, but basically you can refer to the above that these units were supposed to offset the general awfulness of VC core and WS and also compensate for inbuilt weaknesses in the army. Most of the advantages hae been removed while the weaknesses have been left without much to compensate.


3.They can't abuse the rules so much that they get 20 power dice in the magic phase..As much as I agree power dice abuse was propably the biggest problem with VC after the fear rule, they didnt really stop at limiting the dice - they put compounded interest on the nerf bat, especiallyWhereas armies like DE Doc and LM could bring similar agic power but went rather unnoticed, not to mention that that about 30-50% of the VC magic was required just to keep parity with other armies.


Now don't get me wrong. Vampires are an elite force and should have hard characters and also decent magic. But your armies were totally whak.No more so than at least four other armies, not including specific bulds for other armies. These were not dealt to quite so harshly. however they may have deserved it.


Oh believe me I wasn't one of those WAAC VC players. In fact I like the fact that VC got toned way down, cuz now I am no longer grouped in with the unfluffy power gamers. What I don't like is that my book is so poorly balanced. Literally half my unit choices are simply not worthwhile... dire wolves that are no longer fast cavalry... 28 point knights... BAT SWARMS!!!! They could've easily updated the rules or point costs of some of these units... in fact, in the case of Dire Wolves their uselessnes is BECAUSE they updated their rules... why must they completely ruin such a random unit like the dire wolf, but not touch anything else? It's like they're designing this game arbitrarily, on a whim... "hey steve the boss says we must update the new units" "ok larry I have an idea, lets juwst make random changes to 1 unit per book and call it a day" "good thinking u deserve a promotion!"
Its a fairly telling point that to be competitive a VC player now has to set out to abuse the magic phase. I never took MotBA in 7th, now I can't really leave it out of my list.

dinobot
17-02-2011, 20:45
At a completely uncomped tournament 2 weekend ago, the player who came in second for battle points had dark riders and cold one knights. He did a good job using combined arms, which is how you should have to use those units for success.

One player built his list around a huge unit of 12 outriders that would get boosted by magic. It was the kind of list that you look at and think he's being silly, then he starts tearing apart a unit per turn and you're shocked.

As to non-shooty skirmishers, they have shooting but I wouldn't consider them shooty, but I regularly take ungor raiders to great effect.

Another player was running a surprisingly effective list based on units of 20 clanrats and slaves. He had a few uber units supporting them, but it was a tough list to play against because he could set up all the key charges.

Honestly, there was much more variety in lists than 7th edition tournaments tended to have. About the only army that was there a ton with similar lists was Warriors of Chaos, which all seemed to have a general build of warriors, marauders with great weapons and throgg trolls.

In three tournaments since I started 8th edition, I've seen most armies played and tons of different lists.

Your argument falls apart the moment we realise that
1) your tales may not be the most truthful.
2) the "hard evidence" we do have access to (data concerning who won major tournamets, and what they won with) paints a different picture entirely.

silashand
17-02-2011, 20:54
In three tournaments since I started 8th edition, I've seen most armies played and tons of different lists.

I am glad for you that such is the case in your area. However, there is too much missing information to use such anecdotal evidence with any authority. For instance, how many players were at each event? What were the scenarios and event constraints? Were all the players local or was it a mix? Etc. I am not saying your experience is invalid, but the publicly available evidence we have so far for tracked national tournaments in the US indicates a situation different from what you portray.

Cheers, Gary

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 21:01
Gary everything on here is anecdotal. In addition, you are only quoting the US, a more important indicator would be the UK and Continental Europe. Without these the US data is just a bigger version of anecdotal evidence.

Maoriboy007
17-02-2011, 21:03
Lets ask things another way: whats wrong with leaving a product to do what it was designed for, the way it was designed. Then people who want to use it another way accept that they are using that product in a different way, adapt it to their own specifications, and then play away happy?

Turning Silas' point around, in my experience people who are happy playing the game as it is find are absolutely happy for tournaments and tournament players to exist; what they find hard to understand or accept is why something they love has to be changed to suit a market that the product they originally got involved with quite clearly wasn't designed for. They find it difficult to accept is that someone turns up with an army that doesn't reflect the background, then get their backside handed to them and advised on what is "wrong" with their army and why they lost.

I find that "competitive" players can't understand that some people are happy playing with imbalance, some people are happy playing in the style GW are pushing, and that there are more suitable rules systems out there to fulfill any competitive need. They are just as narrow sighted as the most fanatical fluff nazi.

There is an element of hypocrisy here. I have been playing for a long time, far too long. I now see "competitive" players complaining about a change they have to endure, while insisting that a change I, and others like me, would have to endure (and we did in part under 6/7th) would be good for me, others and everyone else.

Please play competitve games - I have no problem with that. In fact in an ideal world I would love GW to bring out a basic beginner/tournament ruleset and simple army lists version, with the real version including the full breadth of the hobby. But accept that currently what you are doing is, in effect, creating a set of houserules to adapt something to the way you want to play, and that while there is nothing wrong with that, it doesn't mean that they should be accepted as a standard for all to play by.

You have some good points and Its admirable that you can aknowledge that part of your satisfaction with the current state of the game is that it suits you more. This can be equally said for people (admittedly like myself) who liked 7th, who shouldn't be automatically and unfairly labelled as WAAC players by those who know next to nothing about them apart from the army they play. (Not a dig at you Yabba, a general comment there)

Howver the point that should be made that these people have built and painted armies and devoted time to the game and are probably just as entitled to play it just as much in a style they enjoy as anyone else.

It wouldn't be too hard to make the game easier for both parties to enjoy, most of the imbalances are so glaringly obvious that is astonishing that they were put in in the first place.
On a eprsonal level it astounds me they were so quick to nerf a 125 point banner and every regeneration save in the VC book after every effort 8th edition had alrady made to balance them already (I hesitate to use the word nerf) but they cant get off their butts and fix more blantant problems like Magic Resistance Doom Spells and War Machines.

Ultimate Life Form
17-02-2011, 21:04
Lets ask things another way: whats wrong with leaving a product to do what it was designed for, the way it was designed.

Actually in it's history the game has been turned inside out to suit GW's mood so many times that I'm hardly willing to let this count as an argument, and the fact that you still linger suggests to me that you would swallow this change as well - and GW will do it the very second it looks like profitable business. Sometimes things must change, for time changes as well - adapt or go down.

silashand
17-02-2011, 21:11
Lets ask things another way: whats wrong with leaving a product to do what it was designed for, the way it was designed. Then people who want to use it another way accept that they are using that product in a different way, adapt it to their own specifications, and then play away happy?

And yet if that design intent is flawed? Just because the GW Design Team wants it to be played in a friendly manner does not mean the base premise of the product they sell supports it.


Turning Silas' point around, in my experience people who are happy playing the game as it is find are absolutely happy for tournaments and tournament players to exist; what they find hard to understand or accept is why something they love has to be changed to suit a market that the product they originally got involved with quite clearly wasn't designed for.

To me that is circular logic. If you start with an incorrect assumption, i.e. that the design of a war game can be said to be incompatible with a competitive setting then that's the only way you can claim the system is "designed for it." I don't fault the players so much for this. It's GW who seem to actually have no grasp of what a war game actually is based on its definition.


...and that there are more suitable rules systems out there to fulfill any competitive need.

Funny, that goes entirely against my experience on two continents. In 20 years of playing I have *never* heard a competitive player tell a fluff player that if they don't like it then go find another game that suits their needs. They may say things like find a group that suits your playstyle, but never to simply go play something else. On the other hand I have heard many, many, MANY fluff players say all the time things like, "well, if that's what you want then go play WARMACHINE/whatever." Just my experience though.


There is an element of hypocrisy here. I have been playing for a long time, far too long. I now see "competitive" players complaining about a change they have to endure, while insisting that a change I, and others like me, would have to endure (and we did in part under 6/7th) would be good for me, others and everyone else.

The difference here is that unlike past edition changes this one pretty much invalidates competitive play altogether. At least in the past you had the option to play the way you wanted. Now you simply don't and if you cannot see how that is bad for the hobby at all then I have no hope of convincing you otherwise no matter what I say.


and that while there is nothing wrong with that, it doesn't mean that they should be accepted as a standard for all to play by.

Funny, over the past several editions I have heard that suggested to fluff players time and again and yet they still complained over and over and over that they shouldn't have to do that to make the system work for them even though it was entirely possible to play in a friendly manner during 6th/7th without any modifications at all. Now you want to tell competitive players the same thing you didn't want to accept for what, 15 years or so now that their entire style of gaming has been essentially eliminated and it's no longer possible to play both ways? Who exactly is it that has this whole "share and share alike" mentality wrong? It certainly doesn't seem to be the competitive players from what I can tell.

As has been said before it is possible to play a competitive game in a friendly manner. The opposite is rarely true. Unfortunately, the opposite is what we have now and frankly is just plain bad all around for this hobby.

Cheers, Gary


Gary everything on here is anecdotal. In addition, you are only quoting the US, a more important indicator would be the UK and Continental Europe. Without these the US data is just a bigger version of anecdotal evidence.

Except that by many people's statements here and otherwise, Europe doesn't generally use the Warhammer system out of the box. They use the ETC system except in the UK as I understand it, a system that by definition is not actually playing by the existing rules.

Cheers, Gary

WarmbloodedLizard
17-02-2011, 21:18
Except that by many people's statements here and otherwise, Europe doesn't generally use the Warhammer system out of the box. They use the ETC system except in the UK as I understand it, a system that by definition is not actually playing by the existing rules.

Cheers, Gary

it's not always ETC but in almost all tournaments there are at least some comp rules. (e.g. no SC)

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 21:35
Except that by many people's statements here and otherwise, Europe doesn't generally use the Warhammer system out of the box. They use the ETC system except in the UK as I understand it, a system that by definition is not actually playing by the existing rules.
Cheers, Gary Immaterial. If GW made a US version of the game, then US stats would be enough. They don't so without the more important European and UK data, the Us just becomes another reflection of a local gaming environment.

@ULF
and the fact that you still linger suggests to me that you would swallow this change as well The reason why I linger is because what I like about GW goes beyond the rules. If GW changed the direction of their rulesets then I would do what I have with every edition of every game I have ever bought off them - adapt it to what I want to play with my friends. We haven't stopped playing siege since the first siege book was released for instance. While this might mean I play less or no games against strangers, thats not why I am in this hobby. I am in it to play games with my mates - GW is almost an inconsequence in this regard ;)

What I find interesting is that none of you have actually answered my point; but thats ok. I do understand where you all come from, having run and played in more than a few tournaments and played against plenty of people who take the competitiveness as the core of the hobby, and I truly hope that you will get resolutions for your fustrations. But for me, I have been happier with this ruleset than either of the previous two by some considerable margin.

silashand
17-02-2011, 21:36
Immaterial. If GW made a US version of the game, then US stats would be enough. They don't so without the more important European and UK data, the Us just becomes another reflection of a local gaming environment.

Absolutely false. If you aren't playing the same game then you cannot make statements about suitability for a competitive environment based on comparison. You can only compare like situations which in this case means those environments where people are using the unmodified 8th edition rules. As it stands today that does not include the majority of continental European events as per the players of those events who often post on this board and others. If there are events that don't use the ETC restrictions or other changes then those would indeed be valid. I have, however, seen very few posts here and elsewhere that such events are common. If there is evidence to the contrary I would be happy to consider it as well, but until then my point stands.


it's not always ETC but in almost all tournaments there are at least some comp rules. (e.g. no SC)

Thanks for that confirmation :). As I said before, 8th edition with changes is a vastly different game than without. Though I like comped 8th better than uncomped, it still leaves a lot to be desired which is why I chose to shelve all my armies for the time being.


But for me, I have been happier with this ruleset than either of the previous two by some considerable margin.

I'm happy for you, seriously. I only wish I could say the same for myself.

Cheers, Gary

Captainbastard
17-02-2011, 21:47
Excuse me? I only quit this past January after several months of games to decide if I could stomach it. Sorry, but false accusations do far more damage to your own credibility than to mine.



Absolutely false. If you aren't playing the same game then you cannot make statements about suitability for a competitive environment based on comparison. You can only compare like situations which in this case means those environments where people are using the unmodified 8th edition rules. As it stands today that does not include the majority of continental European events as per the players of those events who often post on this board and others. If there are events that don't use the ETC restrictions or other changes then those would indeed be valid. I have, however, seen very few posts here and elsewhere that such events are common. If there is evidence to the contrary I would be happy to consider it as well, but until then my point stands.



I'm happy for you, seriously. I only wish I could say the same for myself.

Cheers, Gary

If you are so angry, why don't you literally stamp on your old minis. It might help to cure stress.

Also if you take competativeness as the whole point of the game, why not just play magic cards and leave GW to hobbyists. Magic cards is much more competative and leaves no room for anything such as realistic army compositions and nice looking minis.

silashand
17-02-2011, 21:50
If you are so angry, why don't you literally stamp on your old minis. It might help to cure stress.

Also if you take competativeness as the whole point of the game, why not just play magic cards and leave GW to hobbyists. Magic cards is much more competative and leaves no room for anything such as realistic army compositions and nice looking minis.

Thanks for proving true my previous statement about certain players' attitudes toward those who prefer something else.

Cheers, Gary

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 21:58
Absolutely false. If you aren't playing the same game then you cannot make statements about suitability for a competitive environment based on comparison. You can only compare like situations which in this case means those environments where people are using the unmodified 8th edition rules. As it stands today that does not include the majority of continental European events as per the players of those events who often post on this board and others. If there are events that don't use the ETC restrictions or other changes then those would indeed be valid. I have, however, seen very few posts here and elsewhere that such events are common. If there is evidence to the contrary I would be happy to consider it as well, but until then my point stands. Its not false. Its the same game, the differences are as minor or as important as terrain variation. But if you want to stick to your US-centric perspective of the scene then please do, but it will give you a false and prejudiced appreciation of what is really going on.


I'm happy for you, seriously. I only wish I could say the same for myself Thank you :D - not sure what you are getting out of this though? I would have thought your energies would have been better spent actively promoting a 7th Ed continuation project? After all, most of this is unimportant if you are not going to play 8e surely?

dinobot
17-02-2011, 22:00
Here is a concise and easy to read list of the flaws I see in 8th edition:

- It has gone too far in buffing infantry.
- It has gone too far in buffing shooting.
- It has gone too far in nerfing cavalry.
- The magic system doesn't scale well.
- Certain spells are overpowered.
- Certain items, characters, etc. related to magic are now imbalanced.
- True line of sight is inferior to previous LoS rules.
- Movement is less important (due to random charge)
- Initiative is less important.
- Emphasis placed on having a few, large units detracts from tactical options.
- Leadership tests are too easy to pass.
- Terrain no longer effects movement.
- 1/3 of scenarios promote death stars.
- Common magic items seem to have poor internal (and in some cases external) balance.
- The BRB is too big.

If anyone thinks I missed some I'll add more. If this list gets comprehensive enough I think I'll start a new topic also (as it seems worthy of one).

silashand
17-02-2011, 22:06
Its not false. Its the same game, the differences are as minor or as important as terrain variation. But if you want to stick to your US-centric perspective of the scene then please do, but it will give you a false and prejudiced appreciation of what is really going on.

Suffice to say I disagree. For instance, if one camp allows special characters and the other does not, that can have a *HUGE* impact on the results in my experience. THE two are definitely not equal by any stretch of the imagination.


Thank you :D - not sure what you are getting out of this though? I would have thought your energies would have been better spent actively promoting a 7th Ed continuation project? After all, most of this is unimportant if you are not going to play 8e surely?

Discussing a hobby we both care about is still valid, no? Just because I don't play Warhammer now does not mean I don't want it to be better in the future. I have no illusions that GW listens to anything on these or other boards, but if enough players balk at the system and change their events accordingly then maybe that would be enough to get their attention. Isn't that what the comp crowd from the last couple editions was hoping would happen?

Cheers, Gary

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 22:11
Suffice to say I disagree. The gods love variety mate - especially in perspectives :D


Discussing a hobby we both care about is still valid, no? Just because I don't play Warhammer now does not mean I don't want it to be better in the future. I have no illusions that GW listens to anything on these or other boards, but if enough players balk at the system and change their events accordingly then maybe that would be enough to get their attention. Isn't that what the comp crowd from the last couple editions was hoping would happen? I have no problem with that at all, was just looking for what you were hoping to get out of it. Good luck, you'll need it lol!

decker_cky
17-02-2011, 22:12
It wasn't the biggest tournament, but 26 people with a good mix of armies (Tomb Kings are the only one that jumps out as having not been present). No constraints whatsoever, using all the basic scenarios from the BRB aside from Watchtower (battle for the pass had a little bonus for getting a messenger across the table, battle line had a 200 pt rather than 100 pt bonus for killing the general).

I know for a fact that the Rankings HQ isn't used for a lot of tournaments (being that it hasn't been used for any of the three 8th edition tournaments I've been to), so I'm willing to bet there's well represented areas and totally unrepresented areas on that.

Haravikk
17-02-2011, 22:19
- It has gone too far in buffing infantry.
Infantry needed buffing; combats are now brutal and tactical, rather than one-round and flee affairs.


- It has gone too far in buffing shooting.
Shooting was buffed to offset the fact that units tend to get into combat quicker, and stay in combat longer, so it needed to be buffed.


- It has gone too far in nerfing cavalry.
Cavalry needed to be nerfed because it was one of the worst examples of one-round and flee combat.


- Certain spells are overpowered.
Fair enough, I expect everyone can agree on that. It's too much like russian roulette now, and magic resistance is useless. 7th's magic phase was terrible too but it was at least a bit less random. So I wouldn't go back to 7th, as 8th's magic is that little bit more fun overall, but I don't like 8th's magic either.


- True line of sight is inferior to previous LoS rules.
Depends on how you measure superiority; again, units get into combat faster, and stay in combat longer now, so shooting needs to be able to make the most of what time it has or it won't be worth fielding shooting units at all, so true line of sight does allow for that. It's also a lot simpler. It could certainly use some boundaries or guidelines to prevent ridiculous cases, but on the whole most games I've played have been more streamlined with true line of sight, and everyone's been pretty sensible with it.


- Movement is less important (due to random charge)
Straight line movement maybe, but manoeuvres and positioning are still very important. And coincidentally why cavalry is still competitive if you know how to use them.


- Initiative is less important.
Huh? Initiative is just as important is it applies all the time now.


- Emphasis placed on having a few, large units detracts from tactical options.
Unless you choose to focus on tactics based on more, smaller units, which is still tactically viable. Big units have their uses but someone that goes crazy with them is actually hurting themselves rather than their enemy.


- Leadership tests are too easy to pass.
How do you figure that? If anything Panic used to be too devastating before, and Break Tests of course need to be easier to pass for the new, better combat to work without units fleeing left right and centre.


- Terrain no longer effects movement.
This is great, as it means you can actually get to your enemy. Terrain is still important, but it's no longer impassible and might as well be impassible, as everyone can now move through, it's just risky.


- The BRB is too big.
Get an Island of Blood mini-rulebook. As for the main one; better value for money, you should see the Collector's Edition.

silashand
17-02-2011, 22:19
It wasn't the biggest tournament, but 26 people with a good mix of armies (Tomb Kings are the only one that jumps out as having not been present). No constraints whatsoever, using all the basic scenarios from the BRB aside from Watchtower (battle for the pass had a little bonus for getting a messenger across the table, battle line had a 200 pt rather than 100 pt bonus for killing the general).

That's good to know. At least people are enjoying it. As I understand it the fantasy RTs in a couple areas I know of are having a hard time filling up the events now which is why I said it seems to be dying where I'm at.


I know for a fact that the Rankings HQ isn't used for a lot of tournaments (being that it hasn't been used for any of the three 8th edition tournaments I've been to), so I'm willing to bet there's well represented areas and totally unrepresented areas on that.

Rankings HQ has skewed reporting. I looked through their mechanism a while back and it only appears valid for those players who have attended at least three of their tracked events. For instance, I saw one player who scored 90+ points and placed 2nd in one event that was ranked lower than a couple others who had participated in two, but ranked in the teens in each, but their total points were higher than the individual who only attended one. Also, they only tack events that have 70+ attendees as per their web page. All in all it's a good idea, but frankly their implementation is so flawed it's almost worthless because the comparisons don't work the way they should. If they want it to have merit they need to not actually rank people who have not met the minimum event requirement. Sure, they can still be listed, but they should not fall into the actual rankings until then. Otherwise the whole thing is misleading.

Cheers, Gary

decker_cky
17-02-2011, 22:27
That's good to know. At least people are enjoying it. As I understand it the fantasy RTs in a couple areas I know of are having a hard time filling up the events now which is why I said it seems to be dying where I'm at.omparisons don't work the way they should.

Cheers, Gar

I think it really depends on where you play. Some areas are thriving like never before (my local gaming area has probably double or triple the amount of regular gamers that 7th edition ever had), while I've heard about some gaming groups that have pretty much dropped Warhammer altogether (often going to 40k or Warmachine).

Something I noticed in this last tournament was that people were getting a handle on the 8th edition mechanics and were learning to set traps and use tactical maneuvers more, while the first 8th edition tournament I went to had several players who were making rules mistakes.

What reporting method are you talking about for the views on the US tournaments then? Curious as I always like looking at those types of results.

dinobot
17-02-2011, 22:29
snip

I have chosen not to reply to the majority of your arguments because they are without merit, please don't reply in such a fashion again, I'm looking for constructive criticism only.

A few things do need some clarification thought:


Infantry needed buffing; combats are now brutal and tactical, rather than one-round and flee affairs.

Cavalry needed to be nerfed because it was one of the worst examples of one-round and flee combat.

I was not against infantry being buffed and cavalry being nerfed. My qualms are with the extent in which GW buffed/nerfed them, and that is what those points are meant to convey.


Huh? Initiative is just as important is it applies all the time now.

Initiative is less important due to the step-up rule.

Codsticker
17-02-2011, 22:43
I have removed a number of posts and- for the sake of continuity- edited posts that were, in part, responses to those deleted posts (in case anyone was wondering where their posts went....:shifty:).

Codsticker

The Warseer Mod Squad

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 22:44
Boo!

So we are allowed to be rude as long as it is written politely?

Countdown to stern telling off .............

Codsticker
17-02-2011, 22:49
Boo!

So we are allowed to be rude as long as it is written politely?

Countdown to stern telling off .............

Pretty much....



...but don't tell anyone I said that. :shifty:

Maoriboy007
17-02-2011, 22:54
Thank you :D - not sure what you are getting out of this though? I would have thought your energies would have been better spent actively promoting a 7th Ed continuation project? After all, most of this is unimportant if you are not going to play 8e surely?
It might be possible to influence a positive change in the game especially if you get in early enough. Forums like this one have certainly seem to have had an influence on the current state of 8th both positively and negativly. Perhaps active discussion highlighting problems with the game now can fix problems when 9th comes around.

yabbadabba
17-02-2011, 23:00
I have chosen not to reply to the majority of your arguments because they are without merit, please don't reply in such a fashion again, I'm looking for constructive criticism only.I have chosen not to reply to the majority of your posts because they are without merit, please don't post in such a fashion again.


Is that better Codsticker? :shifty:

WarmbloodedLizard
17-02-2011, 23:20
I have chosen not to reply to the majority of your posts because they are without merit, please don't post in such a fashion again.


dinobots posts have quite a lot of merit as everything he said is based on logic not random opinions.

havarikk's "counterarguments" were not really counterarguments but just random statements that make very little sense. e.g. he equated "nerfed too far" with "shouldn't have been nerfed"...

logan054
17-02-2011, 23:36
Here is a concise and easy to read list of the flaws I see in 8th edition:

- It has gone too far in buffing infantry.
- It has gone too far in buffing shooting.
- It has gone too far in nerfing cavalry.
- The magic system doesn't scale well.
- Certain spells are overpowered.
- Certain items, characters, etc. related to magic are now imbalanced.
- True line of sight is inferior to previous LoS rules.
- Movement is less important (due to random charge)
- Initiative is less important.
- Emphasis placed on having a few, large units detracts from tactical options.
- Leadership tests are too easy to pass.
- Terrain no longer effects movement.
- 1/3 of scenarios promote death stars.
- Common magic items seem to have poor internal (and in some cases external) balance.
- The BRB is too big.

If anyone thinks I missed some I'll add more. If this list gets comprehensive enough I think I'll start a new topic also (as it seems worthy of one).

Pretty much spot on, I don't agree with it all, I originally thought I was less important but it isn't actually true, its certainly more important than it was in 7th.

R Man
18-02-2011, 00:08
dinobots posts have quite a lot of merit as everything he said is based on logic not random opinions.

havarikk's "counterarguments" were not really counterarguments but just random statements that make very little sense. e.g. he equated "nerfed too far" with "shouldn't have been nerfed"...

That is blatantly false. dinobots posts have very little explanation and valid points. Harraikk's statements were sparse but valid. I will elaborate if it is not too presumptuous.


Infantry needed buffing; combats are now brutal and tactical, rather than one-round and flee affairs.

Most infantry were considered to be badly over matched by their mounted counter parts. Most units were badly handicapped by the core rules in that they couldn't benefit from their main asset, resilience. Though infantry units could have a lot of wounds combat resolution mechanics and charge mechanics meant that it was easy for cavalry or monsters with riders to concentrate force and blow right through them with Break Tests making those extra wounds irrelevant. Its worth noting that the infantry units that are most famous from 7th have ASF, Stubborn, Immune to Psychology or a combination of the above. At least now Infantry can take advantage of its. Saying it went too far is not a good way to look at it, because A: only 1 book is out yet, and 2 it makes a blanket statement for a large number of infantry units and it may not be true for all of them.


Shooting was buffed to offset the fact that units tend to get into combat quicker, and stay in combat longer, so it needed to be buffed.

Actually, shooting itself did not get buffed. 2 units of 10 men have the same number of shots as one unit of 20 men. Now shooter units got easier to use. They are better able to concentrate force, and are easier to use, but the shooting itself is pretty much the same. It also looks better on the battlefield but that's beside the point.


Cavalry needed to be nerfed because it was one of the worst examples of one-round and flee combat.

The big problem with cavalry was that it was superior to infantry in every way, as infantry often did not gets to use its advantage (staying power) due to the combat resolution system and therefore cavalry rarely faced their weakness, a drop in effectiveness after combat. It was also extremely easy to buff them too, adding a character with just a lance and heavy armour really helped concentrate force. The end result is that combats were often disjointed, single issue affairs rather than units being used in support of each other.


Fair enough, I expect everyone can agree on that. It's too much like russian roulette now, and magic resistance is useless. 7th's magic phase was terrible too but it was at least a bit less random. So I wouldn't go back to 7th, as 8th's magic is that little bit more fun overall, but I don't like 8th's magic either.

I think we can all agree that this one is true. I do like 8ths magic system, it is good when there are no uber spells. But a few bad ones spoil it for everyone else.


Depends on how you measure superiority; again, units get into combat faster, and stay in combat longer now, so shooting needs to be able to make the most of what time it has or it won't be worth fielding shooting units at all, so true line of sight does allow for that. It's also a lot simpler. It could certainly use some boundaries or guidelines to prevent ridiculous cases, but on the whole most games I've played have been more streamlined with true line of sight, and everyone's been pretty sensible with it.

To be honest, with the exception of issues like the forests most people used TLOS anyway. Now all of a sudden people are told explicitly to do what they were always doing and there's complaining about it?


Straight line movement maybe, but manoeuvres and positioning are still very important. And coincidentally why cavalry is still competitive if you know how to use them.

The thing is we can make the argument that it is more important. In 7th the winner at movement mattered less about positioning and more about who had the highest movement stat and the most cavalry. It was hard to hold and flank opponents because generally super units could just hulk smash and blow through battle lines unsupported.


Huh? Initiative is just as important is it applies all the time now.

Units like cavalry, chariots and monster are highly dependent on initiative. Things like Boar Boyz and Saurus Cavalry face big question marks partly because of their low I, as do may lighter cavalry. Elite Infantry also faces issues because of it's I. Units such as Chaos Warriors who have great potency but low numbers need to cause damage before they start loosing critical members needed to sustain their offensives. Units like this cannot afford much ablative armour in the form of spare members.


Unless you choose to focus on tactics based on more, smaller units, which is still tactically viable. Big units have their uses but someone that goes crazy with them is actually hurting themselves rather than their enemy.

Well there is certainly a trend towards bigger units. But this does not mean that small units are not good support units. A 130 point unit of cavalry won't win a fight on it's own, but it can come to the aid of a block that has stalled or needs an extra push to break through. Cheap enough to sacrifice, small enough not to block or restrict movement forward and mobile enough to be where it needs to be when it needs to be there.


How do you figure that? If anything Panic used to be too devastating before, and Break Tests of course need to be easier to pass for the new, better combat to work without units fleeing left right and centre.

To be honest panic, fear and terror have always been wonky. Often fear and terror cripple armies. I remember stories from 5th where a general dies and an entire army disintegrated. Sad if this happens in turn 1 and no fun for anyone. That said it might have swung too far, but I think we'd need more army books to really decide.


This is great, as it means you can actually get to your enemy. Terrain is still important, but it's no longer impassible and might as well be impassible, as everyone can now move through, it's just risky.

I agree that terrain may be too insignificant, but it is still much better than the quagmire that they were in 7th. Too many forests could be a nightmare to fight through and they bog the game down somewhat.

Of course 8th could do with improvement in many areas. But the improvements it needs are relatively clear and easy fixes. Or so it appears at this stage. I expect as army books develop we'll see our conceptions change and evolve, either for better or for worse.

Captainbastard
18-02-2011, 00:21
Thanks for proving true my previous statement about certain players' attitudes toward those who prefer something else.

Cheers, Gary

If what you mean by something else is totally beardy, cheesy and broken, then youre welcome ;)

Captainbastard
18-02-2011, 00:27
Winning the game with one unit of knights, two monsters and a big character is not "tactics."

The type of armies people took in 7th ed tournies did not require any genuine tactics, and the people who think it did simply misunderstand what tactics are.

Surgency
18-02-2011, 00:32
dinobots posts have quite a lot of merit as everything he said is based on logic not random opinions.

Have you actually read dinobots posts? Everything he says is either strawman, completely false, deliberately misleading, or tailored to his own specific arguement. He has firmly taken the stance that Cavalry are useless, and has made up facts to cater to his point of view, regardless of reality.

dinobot
18-02-2011, 00:33
Actually, shooting itself did not get buffed. 2 units of 10 men have the same number of shots as one unit of 20 men. Now shooter units got easier to use. They are better able to concentrate force, and are easier to use, but the shooting itself is pretty much the same. It also looks better on the battlefield but that's beside the point.

War machines were buffed.

On rank&file shooters: You can fit more of them into a smaller space. And while their shooting itself isn't stronger, the viability of giving them additional ranks has made them all-around stronger units. Now they're capable of holding even decent non-shooters up in combat. This has contributed to gunlines being stronger and more prevalent (check tournament representation compilations if you don't believe this).


Units like cavalry, chariots and monster are highly dependent on initiative. Things like Boar Boyz and Saurus Cavalry face big question marks partly because of their low I, as do may lighter cavalry. Elite Infantry also faces issues because of it's I. Units such as Chaos Warriors who have great potency but low numbers need to cause damage before they start loosing critical members needed to sustain their offensives. Units like this cannot afford much ablative armour in the form of spare members.


Units without enough models to benefit from the step-up rule still rely on initiative. However, they are the minority, and for units that do benefit from the step-up rule, initiative is much less important.


Well there is certainly a trend towards bigger units. But this does not mean that small units are not good support units. A 130 point unit of cavalry won't win a fight on it's own, but it can come to the aid of a block that has stalled or needs an extra push to break through. Cheap enough to sacrifice, small enough not to block or restrict movement forward and mobile enough to be where it needs to be when it needs to be there.

My point wasn't that there are no small units, rather that there are less. Less units = less tactical decisions.


To be honest panic, fear and terror have always been wonky. Often fear and terror cripple armies. I remember stories from 5th where a general dies and an entire army disintegrated. Sad if this happens in turn 1 and no fun for anyone. That said it might have swung too far, but I think we'd need more army books to really decide.

I don't remember terror crippling armies, as units with terror tended to be small and lacked the ability to auto-break units. Fear itself wasn't dependant on leadership; you simply had to have more models and the opponent would auto-break after losing combat. These two issues you bring up are largely unrelated to our discussion over LD tests being easier in 8th.


I agree that terrain may be too insignificant, but it is still much better than the quagmire that they were in 7th. Too many forests could be a nightmare to fight through and they bog the game down somewhat.

I agree, but my point was that they went too far in changing the terrain rules - not that they were perfect in 7th.


Of course 8th could do with improvement in many areas. But the improvements it needs are relatively clear and easy fixes. Or so it appears at this stage. I expect as army books develop we'll see our conceptions change and evolve, either for better or for worse.

Many of the changes needed to address my points are impossible to do through army books. There's no way to fix dwellers below, magic not scaling, rerollable BSB's combined with steadfast, great weapons having little drawback (due to step-up), etc.. GW would have to make drastic changes to the core rules in order to address these. Furthermore, given their reputation, I don't have faith in the future army books either - although this is besides my point.

GodlessM
18-02-2011, 00:36
Gotta love threads like this that basically say GW should have lost themselves immense amounts of money to concentrate on stuff that isn't the number one concern of their business :rolleyes:

Thought the 8th ed. whining would have stopped by now.


On rank&file shooters: You can fit more of them into a smaller space. And while their shooting itself isn't stronger, the viability of giving them additional ranks has made them all-around stronger units. Now they're capable of holding even decent non-shooters up in combat. This has contributed to gunlines being stronger and more prevalent (check tournament representation compilations if you don't believe this).

I have; gunlines aren't winning many of them.


Less units = less tactical decisions.

Quite the blanket statement. How much tactics are involved in a game comes down to the armies facing each other, the scenario, what spells you might roll, etc, not just the amount of units you have.


Many of the changes needed to address my points are impossible to do through army books. There's no way to fix dwellers below, magic not scaling, rerollable BSB's combined with steadfast, great weapons having little drawback (due to step-up), etc..

You seem to be implying in your arguments that your personal beefs with the game are problems with it as if it is a unviersal fact. BSB + steadfast for instance; you claim it is a problem yet it is intentionally there as the premise of it is the draw out combats longer and make them bloodier. How many draw backs GW's have for instance is also dependant on the unit that wields them; 40 Marauders with them mightn't suffer much unless facing an equally big horde that reduces their attacks, but a smaller unit of 18 Tzeentch Warriors might lose too many bodies because of having a lesser armour save and not taking advantage of their excellent pary with shields. Again, more blanket statements.

Also find it funny when it is the people that complain magic is too powerful that want it to scale up to be more powerful in bigger games :rolleyes:

dinobot
18-02-2011, 00:46
Gotta love threads like this that basically say GW should have lost themselves immense amounts of money to concentrate on stuff that isn't the number one concern of their business :rolleyes:

Thought the 8th ed. whining would have stopped by now.

Well, they could've bounced their ideas off of the community for free, and then adjusted their plans based on the reaction. A lot of the problems were obvious, doom spells being the prime examples, I'm sure the BRB would've benefited atleast a little from such exposure.

And while game mechanics aren't their primary concern (I'd guess that'd be modelling or something) it's certaintly an important pillar of their franchise. If they didn't have a game system to go with their miniatures they'd be on equal footing with many of their competitors, instead of in the dominant position they're in today.

Captainbastard
18-02-2011, 00:54
Well, they could've bounced their ideas off of the community for free, and then adjusted their plans based on the reaction. A lot of the problems were obvious, doom spells being the prime examples, I'm sure the BRB would've benefited atleast a little from such exposure.

And while game mechanics aren't their primary concern (I'd guess that'd be modelling or something) it's certaintly an important pillar of their franchise. If they didn't have a game system to go with their miniatures they'd be on equal footing with many of their competitors, instead of in the dominant position they're in today.

Jervis once said that he did read the posts made by the community, but he had to take a "balanced approach," because the people on forums were "too into the rules." Sounds about right. :p

Lets be honest, if you had your way warhammer fantasy would be much more like warmachine - a group of small powerfull sorcerers, cavalry and monsters, rather than a group of regiments. :D

logan054
18-02-2011, 00:56
Gotta love threads like this that basically say GW should have lost themselves immense amounts of money to concentrate on stuff that isn't the number one concern of their business :rolleyes:

8th ed is a pretty good game, like every edition of warhammer I think it could be better, most of the things dino listed annoy me rather than destroy my gaming experience.


Well, they could've bounced their ideas off of the community for free, and then adjusted their plans based on the reaction

I tried that once with my army Chaos army book, sadly people tend to have their own agenda when giving feedback on such things and thus makes the feedback unreliable.

R Man
18-02-2011, 01:05
War machines were buffed.

On rank&file shooters: You can fit more of them into a smaller space. And while their shooting itself isn't stronger, the viability of giving them additional ranks has made them all-around stronger units. Now they're capable of holding even decent non-shooters up in combat. This has contributed to gunlines being stronger and more prevalent (check tournament representation compilations if you don't believe this).

A few stone throwers did get better. Namely Grudge Throwers with Runes and Trebuchets. Maybe mortars too. Other shooting did not improve. Shooters themselves may have gotten better all round, but this is countered by the ability of infantry to charge further. to reach the 'safety' of combat sooner and thus be free from shooting.


Units without enough models to benefit from the step-up rule still rely on initiative. However, they are the minority, and for units that do benefit from the step-up rule, initiative is much less important.

How much of a minority? 49% would technically be a minority. And how does initiative of these minority affect their viability?


My point wasn't that there are no small units, rather that there are less. Less units = less tactical decisions.

Not necessarily. Having fewer units does mean that players have to be much more careful with how they use those units. In addition spamming too many units can reduce tactics because a side with a lot (in 7th that is) gets an innate advantage over his/her opponent not because of tactical merit by through sheer presence, especially as some armies were better suited to this style of warfare than others, and the differences were often great.


I agree, but my point was that they went too far in changing the terrain rules - not that they were perfect in 7th.

Maybe, but the point can be better made. Point out what the implications are for certain armies, and for certain units. Then tell us how this is worse than 7th. I do not believe that 8th is worse than 7th, while I do believe they went to far, I'd rather have these rules than the old ones.


Many of the changes needed to address my points are impossible to do through army books. There's no way to fix dwellers below, magic not scaling, rerollable BSB's combined with steadfast, great weapons having little drawback (due to step-up), etc.. GW would have to make drastic changes to the core rules in order to address these. Furthermore, given their reputation, I don't have faith in the future army books either - although this is besides my point.

I wasn't actually making a statement about army books affecting the core rules. What I was actually commenting on is how new army books may reveal either the strengths or the weaknesses of the rule set. A similar things has happened in previous editions. PS: Great Weapons do have a drawback. They cost points and units cannot use a shield in combat. The actual significance of this depends on the unit in question.

dinobot
18-02-2011, 01:13
I tried that once with my army Chaos army book, sadly people tend to have their own agenda when giving feedback on such things and thus makes the feedback unreliable.

They wouldn't look at every individual responce in my scenario, but rather look at the general trend of feedback. Certain changes, like doom spells, would likely recieve a large amount of negative feedback, and for good reason. Baseless whining would be fractured amongst many minorities (ie, vamp players complaining about 1 dice casting nerf, daemons complaining about the new unstable rules, etc.) and so wouldn't recieve a strong unified voice, and could easily be overlooked. Furthermore there are groups who operate professionally, such as the Dire Wolf group, and they'd be a good source of feedback. Finally, it'd be easy for GW to discern the legitimate criticism from the rest, simply by looking at the arguments used to support the criticism - it's not like this is some intricate, deep game that takes an expert to evaluate.


A few stone throwers did get better. Namely Grudge Throwers with Runes and Trebuchets. Maybe mortars too. Other shooting did not improve. Shooters themselves may have gotten better all round, but this is countered by the ability of infantry to charge further. to reach the 'safety' of combat sooner and thus be free from shooting.

Well, again I point you towards the gunline trend. If the extra movement outshadowed the Fire in Ranks rule, blocks of shooters probably wouldn't have increased in popularity this edition.


How much of a minority? 49% would technically be a minority. And how does initiative of these minority affect their viability?

It's outside of our means to determine the exact percentage of which those units are used. I'd make a wager and say they make up about 20% of each army - 25% is dedicated to core, characters overall recieve 25% I'd guess, and 30% or more I'd guess is dedicated to elite infantry, so that leaves 20% for small, glass canon-y units that don't benefit from steadfast. I'll repeat that these are just estimates.

On the whole I find initiative is less important, and my experience on these forums indicate that others feel the same way.


Not necessarily. Having fewer units does mean that players have to be much more careful with how they use those units. In addition spamming too many units can reduce tactics because a side with a lot (in 7th that is) gets an innate advantage over his/her opponent not because of tactical merit by through sheer presence, especially as some armies were better suited to this style of warfare than others, and the differences were often great.

Your tactical decisions have more individual weight, since you make less of them. I wouldn't say that gives them more depth, simply more individual importance.

Fewer tactical decisions leads to less variety in gameplay. If you don't have many decisions to make, you end up doing the same few motions repeatedly - think of it in numbers, if you have 6 different numbers they can be arranged 36 times, but if you have 2, they can only be arranged 4 times - replace "numbers" with "units" and it relates to warhammer.

Furthermore, the lists in 8th tend to be straightforwards in the way they operate - there aren't many areas for a 40 man infantry block to 'branch out' and take on more roles; it's predestined to be either a tarpit, a steadfast negater or a deathstar. In 7th, the MSU's could take on multiple roles, by nature of their design - their high speed, low point cost, and abundance in numbers allowed them to do things ranging from warmachine hunting, to flanking, to marchblocking. Infantry still played a role in 7th, but it was toned down from what we have now, and the variety in gameplay benefitted because of that.


Maybe, but the point can be better made. Point out what the implications are for certain armies, and for certain units. Then tell us how this is worse than 7th. I do not believe that 8th is worse than 7th, while I do believe they went to far, I'd rather have these rules than the old ones.

In general terrain has become less of a tactical consideration. It simply has less of an effect on the game, to the point where it's barely an issue at all other than the cover save it sometimes provides. In 7th it may have penialized units a bit too much, but at least it added an extra dimension to the gameplay.


Great Weapons do have a drawback. They cost points and units cannot use a shield in combat. The actual significance of this depends on the unit in question.

I was talking about great weapons in relation to initiative. In my army book the Always Strikes Last rule has been a complete non-factor.

R Man
18-02-2011, 03:28
Well, again I point you towards the gunline trend. If the extra movement outshadowed the Fire in Ranks rule, blocks of shooters probably wouldn't have increased in popularity this edition.

But have they really increased in popularity consistently? And after the initial change over is that increase, if it exists, actually sustained to where it can really be called a trend?


It's outside of our means to determine the exact percentage of which those units are used. I'd make a wager and say they make up about 20% of each army - 25% is dedicated to core, characters overall recieve 25% I'd guess, and 30% or more I'd guess is dedicated to elite infantry, so that leaves 20% for small, glass canon-y units that don't benefit from steadfast. I'll repeat that these are just estimates.

On the whole I find initiative is less important, and my experience on these forums indicate that others feel the same way.

Wait wait. What? I understand that these are estimates. But even at these estimates, your estimates, about 50% of units seem to value initiative. Many elite units also benefit a lot from initiative as casualties will hit them very hard. Even units like Chaos Warriors really benefit from high I against some enemies.


Furthermore, the lists in 8th tend to be straightforwards in the way they operate - there aren't many areas for a 40 man infantry block to 'branch out' and take on more roles; it's predestined to be either a tarpit, a steadfast negater or a deathstar. In 7th, the MSU's could take on multiple roles, by nature of their design - their high speed, low point cost, and abundance in numbers allowed them to do things ranging from warmachine hunting, to flanking, to marchblocking. Infantry still played a role in 7th, but it was toned down from what we have now, and the variety in gameplay benefitted because of that.

What? This is nonsensical. Your comparing a playstyle with a unit of a predefined size. Lets break this down somewhat. Your talking about the tactical movement options available to MSU styles of play right? But your also talking about the functions of an individual unit. How are they related? To deal with the unit first: A unit of 40 men in 7th was only a little better than a unit of 30 men. It also had no real options unless it was an elite unit. It would be 5 men wide, as deep as could be and that's about it. If it was smaller it might be sacrificial. If it was elite it has better, it might go 6 or even 7 wide instead of deep. Even so, most infantry units were limited. Often they were to move forward lock the enemy in combat and hope that help arrived soon to ensure a quick victory. Which for most units is exactly like 8th. Only 8th allows the horde rule allowing units like Empire Halberds, Orc Boyz and such the option of using their size as an advantage at last. It might not always be a good idea but its possible. Now if you are talking about a battle line formed of several large blocks with only a handful of supporting units we might have a discussion.

Next issue is the MSU one which is a separate issue from the use of an individual units. And I have to say that the issues you laid out could be an example of why MSU isn't necessarily tactical. If the units in an MSU style system can do all that and more it basically means that there is less emphasis on getting the right units into the right places to do the right job. If all your units can hunt war machines for example, you no longer need to look for firing lanes for artillery or hold back war machine hunters, because you can just make that decision later with a different unit. We should also look at what armies played MSU, and what these armies were composed of as this will give us some idea as to why the changes were made. If we are talking about MSU as a system rather than the units that comprise it knowing who uses it will give great insight as to the characteristics of MSU and to its tactical nature.


In general terrain has become less of a tactical consideration. It simply has less of an effect on the game, to the point where it's barely an issue at all other than the cover save it sometimes provides. In 7th it may have penialized units a bit too much, but at least it added an extra dimension to the gameplay.

Yes, terrain added a dimension to game play. But it was a bad dimension. It was an un-fun dimension. Woods were basically Impassible to Infantry, hampering tactical movement and forcing movement in particular ways. Depending on the table set up of course.


I was talking about great weapons in relation to initiative. In my army book the Always Strikes Last rule has been a complete non-factor.

Firstly you didn't say that. Second of all these units still face a trade off from the weapons use. The Striking last is combined with the lack of a shield and this makes troops frailer in addition to the extra cost. That can be very important for units that are limited in number or faced with overwhelming force. Of course a lot does depend on the units in question and how big a player wants them and how a player wants to use them, but some units do run a big risk if they take GW's. The point is that many of these units (though not that many of them exist) is that they become very vulnerable with Great weapons and striking last can cost a unit a fight depending on circumstances. So to say that Great weapons have no real drawback is not true, and in relation to initiative some units can get away with it but the units themselves still suffer consequences.

silashand
18-02-2011, 03:56
Yes, terrain added a dimension to game play. But it was a bad dimension. It was an un-fun dimension. Woods were basically Impassible to Infantry, hampering tactical movement and forcing movement in particular ways. Depending on the table set up of course.

Unfun for you perhaps. I personally would rather have terrain that actually plays a part on the battlefield like it realistically should rather than just sit there as decoration like we have now. JMO though.

Cheers, Gary

dinobot
18-02-2011, 09:16
Wait wait. What? I understand that these are estimates. But even at these estimates, your estimates, about 50% of units seem to value initiative. Many elite units also benefit a lot from initiative as casualties will hit them very hard. Even units like Chaos Warriors really benefit from high I against some enemies.

This is all besides the point. My point was that initiative plays a lesser role in 8th, and the reasoning to support that hasn't been questioned thus far. My reply to this particular query was on a whim basically.


What? This is nonsensical. Your comparing a playstyle with a unit of a predefined size. Lets break this down somewhat. Your talking about the tactical movement options available to MSU styles of play right? But your also talking about the functions of an individual unit. How are they related? To deal with the unit first: A unit of 40 men in 7th was only a little better than a unit of 30 men. It also had no real options unless it was an elite unit. It would be 5 men wide, as deep as could be and that's about it. If it was smaller it might be sacrificial. If it was elite it has better, it might go 6 or even 7 wide instead of deep. Even so, most infantry units were limited. Often they were to move forward lock the enemy in combat and hope that help arrived soon to ensure a quick victory. Which for most units is exactly like 8th. Only 8th allows the horde rule allowing units like Empire Halberds, Orc Boyz and such the option of using their size as an advantage at last. It might not always be a good idea but its possible. Now if you are talking about a battle line formed of several large blocks with only a handful of supporting units we might have a discussion.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, but to re-iterate my position: small units with high movement values were more prominent in 7th, and they lended themselves to a diverse array of tactics. In 8th fewer, larger units are more prominent, and their low movement, large size and low abundance limits their versatility.


Next issue is the MSU one which is a separate issue from the use of an individual units. And I have to say that the issues you laid out could be an example of why MSU isn't necessarily tactical. If the units in an MSU style system can do all that and more it basically means that there is less emphasis on getting the right units into the right places to do the right job. If all your units can hunt war machines for example, you no longer need to look for firing lanes for artillery or hold back war machine hunters, because you can just make that decision later with a different unit. We should also look at what armies played MSU, and what these armies were composed of as this will give us some idea as to why the changes were made. If we are talking about MSU as a system rather than the units that comprise it knowing who uses it will give great insight as to the characteristics of MSU and to its tactical nature.

The point is that MSU's were more adaptable and so you had more choices open to you when fielding them. A unit with a rigid set of uses (such as an infantry block) is very straightforwards in the way it operates, so it inherently requires less decision making. It's too hard to argue tactical depth as we don't have a definitive value to judge it by; what I can argue is that 7th had more tactics, and that those tactics lead to less repetitious games due to their abundance.


Yes, terrain added a dimension to game play. But it was a bad dimension. It was an un-fun dimension. Woods were basically Impassible to Infantry, hampering tactical movement and forcing movement in particular ways. Depending on the table set up of course.

Whether they were fun or not is subjective.

What's not subjective is that they added an additional dimension to gameplay; to tie it in with my previous point, having additional tactical concerns due to terrain leads to less repetitive gameplay.


Firstly you didn't say that.

That's because it wasn't a particularly important point, and the nature in which I presented it didn't leave much room for elaboration.

Haravikk
18-02-2011, 11:26
havarikk's "counterarguments" were not really counterarguments but just random statements that make very little sense. e.g. he equated "nerfed too far" with "shouldn't have been nerfed"...
No I didn't; I don't believe that shooting, infantry and cavalry have been nerfed or buffed too much at all, and pointed out why I believe so. If that constitutes random statements then I assume "relevant" statements would be ones that agree unconditionally with everything that was said, hmm?
Besides which, I was responding to a list of random bullet points that make very little sense, or more specifically are backed up with no fact, and seemingly no experience of actually playing with 8th edition rather than against it.

I should point out as well that dinobot has resorted to PMing me with a set of rules of conduct that if I don't follow he won't even read my posts, how deliciously petty is that?

I think a mod should really just lock this thread, it's clear dinobot isn't interested in counter-arguments because he'd much rather be playing 7th edition, and seems completely unwilling to even consider the merits of 8th. I'd be surprised if he's even played 8th edition, except perhaps to bring along a 7th edition army, get minced, then throw a fit because his cavalry won't win the game for him single-handed anymore. That doesn't mean that infantry is now king, it just means that infantry is actually now something other than a conga-line of units waiting to be destroyed by each successive cavalry charge, and I absolutely love that fact in all the games that I play, with or without cavalry, as it means combat is something to consider carefully.

WarmbloodedLizard
18-02-2011, 11:29
Most infantry were considered to be badly over matched by their mounted counter parts. Most units were badly handicapped by the core rules in that they couldn't benefit from their main asset, resilience. Though infantry units could have a lot of wounds combat resolution mechanics and charge mechanics meant that it was easy for cavalry or monsters with riders to concentrate force and blow right through them with Break Tests making those extra wounds irrelevant. Its worth noting that the infantry units that are most famous from 7th have ASF, Stubborn, Immune to Psychology or a combination of the above. At least now Infantry can take advantage of its. Saying it went too far is not a good way to look at it, because A: only 1 book is out yet, and 2 it makes a blanket statement for a large number of infantry units and it may not be true for all of them.

No one said they shouldn't have been buffed. They were just buffed too far. All there has to be changed is some way to weaken steadfast. (The best way in my opinion would be to make falking/rear charging to lower the units steadfast leadership by 1/2 for every flank/rear charge. (no effect on units without steadfast))




Actually, shooting itself did not get buffed. 2 units of 10 men have the same number of shots as one unit of 20 men. Now shooter units got easier to use. They are better able to concentrate force, and are easier to use, but the shooting itself is pretty much the same. It also looks better on the battlefield but that's beside the point.

that's just semantics, really. By buffing the shooting units' versatility you buff the unit and with that you also buff shooting. shooting also gets directly buffed by making concentrated fire easier to accomplish.

however you're arguing totally beside the point. very few people have anything against the way BS-based shooting works in 8th. It is the warmachines that are the problem. there has to be some kind of cover system available at least, but TLoS removed any chance of hiding and no coversave was introduced. (e.g. +1/+2 to Wardsave in soft/hard cover)




The big problem with cavalry was that it was superior to infantry in every way, as infantry often did not gets to use its advantage (staying power) due to the combat resolution system and therefore cavalry rarely faced their weakness, a drop in effectiveness after combat. It was also extremely easy to buff them too, adding a character with just a lance and heavy armour really helped concentrate force. The end result is that combats were often disjointed, single issue affairs rather than units being used in support of each other.

No one denied that. again havrikks and your argument are not counterarguments but random true statements. again, dinobot argued that cav was nerfed too far. spear/lance cavalry has lost a lot of it's power, as falking a steadfast unit with them does nothing but a couple of wounds for one turn. now, there is usually little reason to field a unit. they are not useless, they are just subpar choices. (again, my suggestion of lowering the steadfast Ld with flank charges would aleviate that problem. it would not have as stong an affect as a cav charge in the flank would have had but it would make the flanked unit less steadfast and slightly more likely to break.)




To be honest, with the exception of issues like the forests most people used TLOS anyway. Now all of a sudden people are told explicitly to do what they were always doing and there's complaining about it?

who used TLoS before? As far as I remember, it was always played as an abstract system with infinitely high terrain. It made everything a lot easier and you didn't need a laserpointer.




The thing is we can make the argument that it is more important. In 7th the winner at movement mattered less about positioning and more about who had the highest movement stat and the most cavalry. It was hard to hold and flank opponents because generally super units could just hulk smash and blow through battle lines unsupported.

the movement stat is clearly less important (also reforming makes everything a lot easier). the difference between a charging dwarf and a charging ogre is 3", before, it was 6"! they difference between movement has become a lot less important. only when distances are very long (outer flanks; denied flank; etc.) do fast units get a (real) advantage. (this again is countered by how easy you can reform etc.)




Units like cavalry, chariots and monster are highly dependent on initiative. Things like Boar Boyz and Saurus Cavalry face big question marks partly because of their low I, as do may lighter cavalry. Elite Infantry also faces issues because of it's I. Units such as Chaos Warriors who have great potency but low numbers need to cause damage before they start loosing critical members needed to sustain their offensives. Units like this cannot afford much ablative armour in the form of spare members.

are they really? chariots deal most of their damage with impact hits. Monsters and heavy cavalry have toughness/armor. look at what would change if they had high initiative: the unit they attack usually doesn't care much about the losses the cav unit can inflict. and cav don't suffer a lot of wounds from S3/4 attacks. The stuff that will hurt cav badly (i.e. GWs) will hit after them anyway.
It is not useless of course and will come into play after units have lost some models. however, it is probably not as important as in 7th, where higher initiative often meant that noone will get to strike back. (of course many combats did not last very long, and it is debateable wheter it is slightly better or slightly worse than in 7th. What is still true, though, is that initiative is still one of the least important stats (if the THE least).




Well there is certainly a trend towards bigger units. But this does not mean that small units are not good support units. A 130 point unit of cavalry won't win a fight on it's own, but it can come to the aid of a block that has stalled or needs an extra push to break through. Cheap enough to sacrifice, small enough not to block or restrict movement forward and mobile enough to be where it needs to be when it needs to be there.

dinobot never said there were no support units anymore. he said the emphasis lies on big units. (and oftentimes the 130 points spent on the support cavalry could be more efficiently spent on a stone thrower, more models in the big infantry block or a scrollcaddy.)




To be honest panic, fear and terror have always been wonky. Often fear and terror cripple armies. I remember stories from 5th where a general dies and an entire army disintegrated. Sad if this happens in turn 1 and no fun for anyone. That said it might have swung too far, but I think we'd need more army books to really decide.

No one said that 7th ed panic/fear/terror/marchblock rules were great. just that re-rolls for everything make them pretty useless near the BSB. why even leave them in when it is highly improbable that they ever have any effect. It would have been much better to just tone down the effects of fear and terror.
again I have some rough ideas/examples how it could have been done:
1. BSB re-rolls only for Break Tests, Stupidity and Panic (failing these has a very big effect on the battle, so re-rolls are ok). (i.e. no re-rolls for frenzy, marchblocking, fear, terror, etc.)

FEAR:
when charging, being charged,during combat and losing combat.
-Fear causers are immune to fear and Terror only causes fear in fear causers.
charging/being charged:
-leadership test (before moving chargers).
-if failed: BS reduced to 1.
during combat:
-leadership test (at beginning of combat).
-if failed: WS reduced to 1.
losing combat:
-leadership test (before rolling for break test).
-if failed: Ld reduced by 1.
TERROR:
everything would be the same as for fear but tests are taken at -1Ld. also there would be the following rule:
within 6" at the beginning of the turn:
-leadership test at -1 (during compulsory movements phase)
-if failed: unit can neither charge nor march this turn.
-only taken once per unit and battle.




I agree that terrain may be too insignificant, but it is still much better than the quagmire that they were in 7th. Too many forests could be a nightmare to fight through and they bog the game down somewhat.

yes, 7th ed terrain wasn't that great either, I i feel it was better than 8ed ed terrain (it wouldn't work in 8th though, because of the prevalence of low movment units). there should be at least 1-2 results on the random terrain table that have an influence on movement. not as extreme as 7th but something like "non-skirmisher units cannot march in this terrainpiece" or a blanket special rule for all swamps and forests that says "models in this terrain piece have -1M" would have been nice. (stider units also should not be affected by any of the negative effects terrain can have.)



Of course 8th could do with improvement in many areas. But the improvements it needs are relatively clear and easy fixes. Or so it appears at this stage. I expect as army books develop we'll see our conceptions change and evolve, either for better or for worse.

I don't think that new armybooks could change anything. it should never lie with the armybooks to correct bad design in the BRB. 50%+ of armybooks will always be of another edition and the BRB-designer has to take that into consideration. (unless GW totally changes its way of releasing ABs)

dinobot
18-02-2011, 11:36
I should point out as well that dinobot has resorted to PMing me with a set of rules of conduct that if I don't follow he won't even read my posts, how deliciously petty is that?

The PM was meant as an apology for dismissing your post, a clarification of why I did so and an invitation to re-write the post and discuss 4 realz. The guidelines might seem unwarranted, but I assure you they were not of a trolling nature, rather they were meant meant to improve discussion. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.

WarmbloodedLizard
18-02-2011, 12:02
Jervis once said that he did read the posts made by the community, but he had to take a "balanced approach," because the people on forums were "too into the rules." Sounds about right. :p


what does it even mean to be "too into the rules"???

a good designer can distinguish unbalanced suggestions from balanced ones but still consider them and change them to work properly.

Lord Solar Plexus
18-02-2011, 12:34
You obviously don't play historicals or read much on actual warfare in a similar period to Warhammer. The vast majority of casualties caused in a battle were invariable due to one side breaking and being cut down, ala every previous edition of the rules *except* 8th edition.


Quite so, but did a clash of regiments historically result in one of them running away after the first cuts? The question of how much realism one likes aside, I don't think that was very realistic in past editions either.



The current steadfast/hack & slash mechanism bears absolutely no relation to reality


What else but hack & slash do you expect from your models armed with swords, axes, flails, lances and polearms? Isn't that the point in fielding them? It's most definitively what warriors so armed did at Poitiers or Cassel, and even at Eylau or Omdurman.


it is pretty clear that he doesn't mean eagles when he talks about monsters


Of course, and yet I remain adamant that his statement and the conclusion that monsters are better than knights is wrong. A Hydra doesn't have a better AS than knights and neither does a Doomwheel. Both might conceivably defeat more points of knights in a 1:1 situation but both could reasonably defeat infantry or chariots or characters or other monsters, and they do often have better T and AS than those. Does dinobot therefore conclude that all of the latter are useless? No, because even if the statement was true, it would not support such a conclusion on its own.

Secondly, such a statement doesn't hold any water because it only applies to a few armies. Empire and Bretonnia do not have any monsters to speak of, or when did you last see an Imperial Dragon? Vampires and Chaos however have better or rather, deadlier, cavalry than Empire knights, so it's questionable whether "monsters do more damage".

Kaptajn_Congoboy
18-02-2011, 12:47
Quite so, but did a clash of regiments historically result in one of them running away after the first cuts? The question of how much realism one likes aside, I don't think that was very realistic in past editions either.

As far as I know, it was not unusual for regiments during the Napoleonic Wars to break before contact was made with an enemy infantry column charging it.

But don't bring realism into fantasy miniatures gaming. Even the historicals aren't always too good at that.

WarmbloodedLizard
18-02-2011, 13:09
Of course, and yet I remain adamant that his statement and the conclusion that monsters are better than knights is wrong. A Hydra doesn't have a better AS than knights and neither does a Doomwheel.

a Hydra has T5, 4+AS and regen, the doomwheel has T6 and 4+AS. they don't need a better AS, they have other things that make them more survivable.



Both might conceivably defeat more points of knights in a 1:1 situation but both could reasonably defeat infantry or chariots or characters or other monsters, and they do often have better T and AS than those. Does dinobot therefore conclude that all of the latter are useless? No, because even if the statement was true, it would not support such a conclusion on its own.

of course survivability doesn't make monsters better than knights alone. but i really fail to see the point you're trying to make here.



Secondly, such a statement doesn't hold any water because it only applies to a few armies. Empire and Bretonnia do not have any monsters to speak of, or when did you last see an Imperial Dragon? Vampires and Chaos however have better or rather, deadlier, cavalry than Empire knights, so it's questionable whether "monsters do more damage".

Empire/Dwarfs have warmachines instead and their cav are cheap and can have great weapons. Bretonnian cavalry is an exception as they can rank up.

Chaos Knights are not spear/lance cav and have a high base strength and 2A. that makes them different from, say, empire knights with lances.

Lord Solar Plexus
18-02-2011, 14:07
a Hydra has T5, 4+AS and regen, the doomwheel has T6 and 4+AS. they don't need a better AS, they have other things that make them more survivable.


You have used the phrase "Nobody said that" about half a dozen times in your last posts, so may I suggest that you heed your own advice? Who said that they need a better AS? dinobot claimed that Monsters HAVE better AS. Now of course he might have subsumed ward saves in the heat of the debate, and indeed, some monsters have one and most cavalry I know doesn't.

Nevertheless, I disagree with the conclusion that monsters are better or even only more survivable than cavalry. They certainly are in some instances but not in others, and nearly everyone agrees that the HPA and Hydra are severely underpriced. A cheaper Hydra will kill 6.6 Halberdiers, the same as 10 Empire knights, but it may or may not have its breath attack, so it is indeed better in this situation.

A cannonball or two can kill a Hydra. It's unlikely to kill more than one knight per shot in almost all cases. A Fireball takes off two wounds of a Hydra but has a hard time killing even one knight. With metal, things could look dire for the knights and an Ini test is much worse for a Hydra compared to Blood Knights again...



of course survivability doesn't make monsters better than knights alone. but i really fail to see the point you're trying to make here.


My points are that monsters aren't more survivable without a context, and that they aren't more deadly a priori.



Empire/Dwarfs have warmachines instead and their cav are cheap and can have great weapons. Bretonnian cavalry is an exception as they can rank up.


So...? How does that support the statement that monsters do more damage or are the better choice over cavalry? I say it again: It does not even apply to these armies, and neither WM nor GW nor ranks have anything to do with that.



Chaos Knights are not spear/lance cav and have a high base strength and 2A. that makes them different from, say, empire knights with lances.


I just emphasized the differences in the post you quoted, so I'm not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me here.

I'm trying to show that the blanket statement that monsters are deadlier than cavalry is false as well.

dinobot
18-02-2011, 15:26
dinobot claimed that Monsters HAVE better AS.

I said they had better saves, and I was referring to the regeneration save that's popular amongst monsters. I never mentioned AS, although some monsters do have those as well.



So...? How does that support the statement that monsters do more damage or are the better choice over cavalry?

Monsters typically have more attacks and a higher base strength.


I'm trying to show that the blanket statement that monsters are deadlier than cavalry is false as well.

Yeah, I guess I agree with this and it was my fault for exaggerating the extent of which monsters are superior.

Knights do excel in some scenarios, but in an all-comers list I don't think they're viable. Against armies with lots of gunpowder, they'll get shot to bits, against Immune to Psychology armies their combat res. isn't worth their points, and against horde armies they're unlikely to get any flank charges at all (due to your battle line being smaller). Furthermore their uses overlap with those of monsters, and many armies have access to monsters that are superior to knights.

WarmbloodedLizard
18-02-2011, 16:12
dinobot claimed that Monsters HAVE better AS. Now of course he might have subsumed ward saves in the heat of the debate, and indeed, some monsters have one and most cavalry I know doesn't.

1. dinobot already showed that I read correctly
2. your just arguing semantics...


Nevertheless, I disagree with the conclusion that monsters are better or even only more survivable than cavalry. They certainly are in some instances but not in others, and nearly everyone agrees that the HPA and Hydra are severely underpriced. A cheaper Hydra will kill 6.6 Halberdiers, the same as 10 Empire knights, but it may or may not have its breath attack, so it is indeed better in this situation.


just correcting:
a hydra deals 10.77 wounds (175pts)
knights deal 5.35 wounds (185pts, 7kn, mus+std)

so yeah, the hydra deals twice as much damage (every round!) while being more survivable. [but yes, the hydra is of course underpriced.]



A cannonball or two can kill a Hydra. It's unlikely to kill more than one knight per shot in almost all cases. A Fireball takes off two wounds of a Hydra but has a hard time killing even one knight. With metal, things could look dire for the knights and an Ini test is much worse for a Hydra compared to Blood Knights again...

not empire canons, they need more like 3-4 shots. regen/misfire really helps. (and if the knights are in 2 ranks, every shot will kill 1-2). fireball deals exactly half as much damage to knights as to the hydra. and it's kind of a stupid comparison... you shouldn't look at the counters of a unit but at the whole field of options available. and there you see that pretty much anything deals equal or more damage to knights.




I'm trying to show that the blanket statement that monsters are deadlier than cavalry is false as well.

since you really like arguing semantics, let's rephrase: there are few monsters that are inferior to knights while there are many monsters that are superior to knights.

both sentences mean the same, the first just assumes that the addressee interprets the sentence instead of just taking it literally.

decker_cky
18-02-2011, 19:58
Regen only helps against the cannon if the empire player didn't already shoot the hydra with crossbows with flaming shots that turn, which is pretty popular from what I've seen.

Captainbastard
18-02-2011, 20:26
There are some knights that can still feasably break units in the first turn. Eg chaos, bloodknights and Brettonian knights.

The thing is Warhammer was never meant to be a game all about knights, monsters and small units of skirmishers. The only army which is really supposed to be a full knight army is Brettonians.

What all these "competative players" seem to miss out on is that in 7th edition infantry was basically redundant filler for the army. Which is strange in a game which is based around infantry in most armies.

WarmbloodedLizard
18-02-2011, 21:06
What all these "competative players" seem to miss out on is that in 7th edition infantry was basically redundant filler for the army.

If it really seems like this to you, you might not have understood what they are actually writing.

dinobot
18-02-2011, 21:18
There are some knights that can still feasably break units in the first turn. Eg chaos, bloodknights and Brettonian knights.

The thing is Warhammer was never meant to be a game all about knights, monsters and small units of skirmishers. The only army which is really supposed to be a full knight army is Brettonians.

What all these "competative players" seem to miss out on is that in 7th edition infantry was basically redundant filler for the army. Which is strange in a game which is based around infantry in most armies.

I made the distinction between "regular" knights and "uber" knights in one of my earlier posts. Blood knights and such are still very good, and in fact 8th may have been a net benefit for them due to the new frenzy rules.

And your portrayel of 7th being "all about knights, monsters and small units of skirmishers" is far from accurate. Ranked infantry had it's place, it's place simply wasn't as the centerpiece for most armies...

... and the thing is, that actually made sense, from a gameplay perspective and from a logical one. I've already gone over the gameplay advantages of a MSU style game, so I won't get into that again, but what hasn't been mentioned is how logical it is - think about it, it's a world with dragons, giant demons and all sorts of powerful mythical creatures... how is infantry supposed to compete against that, and why does ranking them up make them better for that purpose? If a highly mobile dragon is flying around and flaying your army alive, the last thing you'd want to do is rank up your soldiers into large, unwieldy, vulnerable blocks. Logically, I'd expect armies of men to be composed of small, elite task forces, specialized for slaying such creatures. The whole "infantry blocks are realistic" argument falls flat on it's face when you realise that this is a fantasy game:D

The merits in infantry blocks I can see are the asthetic appeal (ranked infantry simply looks cool) and the diversity they inject into the game. Those things existed in 7th... perhaps more so than in 8th... 5x5 infantry looks nicer than 5x10 and their newly found dominance has actually eclipsed other units, lessening diversity in army composition and tactics. Overall 8th seems to have destroyed those cannon fodders' charm by shoving them into the spotlight.

Ultimate Life Form
18-02-2011, 21:55
The whole "infantry blocks are realistic" argument falls flat on it's face when you realise that this is a fantasy game:D


You just ruined your entire chain of arguments by removing the point. Reducing the whole thing to 'it's just fantasy' works against you just as well. I don't know your fantasies, and to be honest I also don't want to, but it's safe to say everyone has a different take on things.

dinobot
18-02-2011, 22:24
You just ruined your entire chain of arguments by removing the point. Reducing the whole thing to 'it's just fantasy' works against you just as well. I don't know your fantasies, and to be honest I also don't want to, but it's safe to say everyone has a different take on things.

My arguments have primarily been over the gameplay changes that 8th has brought. I don't think I've ever tried supporting an argument based on realism - the closest I've gotten to was dismissing one in my last post.

Captainbastard
18-02-2011, 22:34
My arguments have primarily been over the gameplay changes that 8th has brought. I don't think I've ever tried supporting an argument based on realism - the closest I've gotten to was dismissing one in my last post.

That says it all...

Imagine if the lord of the rings film had just been 10 men protecting a castle. That is your idea of fantasy battles.

dinobot
18-02-2011, 23:10
That says it all...

Imagine if the lord of the rings film had just been 10 men protecting a castle. That is your idea of fantasy battles.

Tbh the "epic" battles kinda ruined the trilogy for me. I loved the first film, 'cause the cast was running around like some DnD party and it was more of an adventure than anything. The 2nd and 3rd films were dominated by CGI battles, with Legolas skateboarding on a shield, ridiculous cavalry charges, etc, they just didn't come off as anything more than action flicks in a fantasy setting, with little importance placed on the main characters. Not to mention the trilogy rarely gave me any sense of anxiety or tension, as the good guys basically just breezed through everything and the orcs, despite having planning, equipment, numbers and training on their side, couldn't accomplish anything. And then we get into the generously applied deus ex machina...

But this tangent is off-topic, so I will stop. Anyways, whatever your point is, you aren't going to convince me by making a forced reference to the LotR movies.

Edit: Just a quick other tangent I thought of: Army of Darkness. It's climax was 60 men (of which only 10 or so were on screen at a time) defending some castle, and it was awesome :D I like both large and small scale battles in fantasy/pseudo-historical films, it really depends on their execution more than my preference. But again, this doesn't really relate to warhammer, since films are a much different form of entertainment than miniature war games :P

R Man
18-02-2011, 23:17
This is all besides the point. My point was that initiative plays a lesser role in 8th, and the reasoning to support that hasn't been questioned thus far. My reply to this particular query was on a whim basically.

But then why do such units as cavalry, elite infantry and the like value it so much. That was my point. Big blocks of infantry maybe don't value it much, but any elite unit going up against any other unit does. So initiative is still a useful stat for a good portion of units. If anything it is more important for these units because chargers no longer strike first. The question of how much more important (for these particular units) is dependent on opinion and the unit in question.


I don't understand what you're trying to say, but to re-iterate my position: small units with high movement values were more prominent in 7th, and they lended themselves to a diverse array of tactics. In 8th fewer, larger units are more prominent, and their low movement, large size and low abundance limits their versatility.

That's strange because I didn't understand your original point either. This is a much better post. While it is true that MSU play-styles did have a lot of flexibility and versatility but most of that came not from tactical principles but from the Movement statistic and often the special make up of the armies that used it. What armies used these play-styles? Elves? Bretonnians? Cavalry based lists? Wood Elf Skirmisher based lists? Does anyone remember fighting Wood Elf skirmishers in 6th? Back when Skirmishers could not be march blocked. It would turn into a nightmare. Get close and they flee. There is almost no downside to fleeing for such troops so the choice is often a no-brainer. I guess that's my point is that there was no real trade off for doing MSU. You could hit everything, dance, flee, kick ass. There was no trade off in decision making that marks a strong aspect of tactics. Just look at the armies and the units that used to do this and ask: Why don't XXX do that? Why don't Dwarves play MSU? Are Dwarf Players tactically stupid? Or is (was) their play-style more because they have M 3?


The point is that MSU's were more adaptable and so you had more choices open to you when fielding them. A unit with a rigid set of uses (such as an infantry block) is very straightforwards in the way it operates, so it inherently requires less decision making. It's too hard to argue tactical depth as we don't have a definitive value to judge it by; what I can argue is that 7th had more tactics, and that those tactics lead to less repetitious games due to their abundance.

But isn't the interaction between big units? An individual big block may be rigid, but that has always been the case. It's the same with small blocks. A small block still has most of the traits it used to. I would say that seeing the two different types interacting together rather than either or would be the best situation. MSU has its faults, such as it's restriction to certain armies, its own easy of use and the lack of tactical trade offs and the like. But I think that this issue is best debated properly and seperate from the other issues as it is quite complex and includes area's of high subjectivity. Do you agree? If so perhaps this should be debated elsewhere.


Whether they were fun or not is subjective.

What's not subjective is that they added an additional dimension to gameplay; to tie it in with my previous point, having additional tactical concerns due to terrain leads to less repetitive gameplay.

That is a fair statement. I guess we will never get a consensus on this issue.


No one said they shouldn't have been buffed. They were just buffed too far. All there has to be changed is some way to weaken steadfast. (The best way in my opinion would be to make falking/rear charging to lower the units steadfast leadership by 1/2 for every flank/rear charge. (no effect on units without steadfast))

Infantry may have been buffed too far, but how far is too far? Is it a little too far that will be addressed in the upcoming army books? Or is it unrepentantly broken? Perhaps we can say that it has swung too far for some units specifically, eg: Skaven Slaves. Remember we are still only at the start of the edition. I'm sure if we were all looking back on 8th as a finished product we would all hold different opinions. I suppose my objection is to the generalised statement that have been made. It does read like dinobot has been saying: "All infantry are OP. All cavlary suck, etc". I know this is not what is actually being said, but without examples and explaining statements it looks like an attack on all units. And if he is attacking all units, some examples would certainly help.


that's just semantics, really. By buffing the shooting units' versatility you buff the unit and with that you also buff shooting. shooting also gets directly buffed by making concentrated fire easier to accomplish.

I disagree, because the question of if they have received a buff depends on if they have benefited disproportionately to their peers. Certainly the new shooter rules are better than the old ones, but with faster infantry this is up for debate.


however you're arguing totally beside the point. very few people have anything against the way BS-based shooting works in 8th. It is the warmachines that are the problem. there has to be some kind of cover system available at least, but TLoS removed any chance of hiding and no coversave was introduced. (e.g. +1/+2 to Wardsave in soft/hard cover)

This is a much better statement than the last. Why couldn't something this specific be included earlier? I agree that stone throwers and Cannons got better than their 7th edition counter parts. But like with unit shooters I wonder if this change outweighs the benefits other units got in mobility. Some certainly got disproportionately better: Trebuchets, Mortars, Grudge Throwers with runes so I agree on that point.


No one denied that. again havrikks and your argument are not counterarguments but random true statements. again, dinobot argued that cav was nerfed too far. spear/lance cavalry has lost a lot of it's power, as falking a steadfast unit with them does nothing but a couple of wounds for one turn. now, there is usually little reason to field a unit. they are not useless, they are just subpar choices. (again, my suggestion of lowering the steadfast Ld with flank charges would aleviate that problem. it would not have as stong an affect as a cav charge in the flank would have had but it would make the flanked unit less steadfast and slightly more likely to break.)

That depends. Are you taking the cavalry unit is isolation? Or are we looking at a specific scenario? Who are the members of this scenario or the units in question?


who used TLoS before? As far as I remember, it was always played as an abstract system with infinitely high terrain. It made everything a lot easier and you didn't need a laserpointer.

The truth is I can't back up my statement. I always used Tlos, and my friends always did, but I can't speak for anyone else. It was a suspicion I had but I still wonder about it.


the movement stat is clearly less important (also reforming makes everything a lot easier). the difference between a charging dwarf and a charging ogre is 3", before, it was 6"! they difference between movement has become a lot less important. only when distances are very long (outer flanks; denied flank; etc.) do fast units get a (real) advantage. (this again is countered by how easy you can reform etc.)

Oh sure. The movement stat is less important. But I though I was talking about Movement in general such as positioning and the like. If I misread a post than I apologies now. But as I noted before High Movement was often so much of an innate advantage that for many units it essentially rendered tactics obsolete because there were few serious tactical trade offs. For example a unit of cavalry could charge most infantry units with impunity because (depending on the unit) it would almost certainly win combat. This means that the position of units supporting that infantry unit are often irrelevant. On the other hand in 8th the position of those units is now important because the Knights probably won't blow through that infantry unit in a single turn and now the player has to be aware of who will flank his/her unit and how to stop it. But that's just how I see it.


are they really? chariots deal most of their damage with impact hits. Monsters and heavy cavalry have toughness/armor. look at what would change if they had high initiative: the unit they attack usually doesn't care much about the losses the cav unit can inflict. and cav don't suffer a lot of wounds from S3/4 attacks. The stuff that will hurt cav badly (i.e. GWs) will hit after them anyway.
It is not useless of course and will come into play after units have lost some models. however, it is probably not as important as in 7th, where higher initiative often meant that noone will get to strike back. (of course many combats did not last very long, and it is debateable wheter it is slightly better or slightly worse than in 7th. What is still true, though, is that initiative is still one of the least important stats (if the THE least).

While it's true that monsters and knights can shrug off quite a bit of damage I think you underestimate the impact that a few S 4 attacks can make on an expensive units, especially if that unit has already taken a beating. It is also important for elite units, or when elite units fight cavalry and monsters. Some elite units can shred charging cavalry (Black Guard, Chaos Warriors) though these units are rare.


dinobot never said there were no support units anymore. he said the emphasis lies on big units. (and oftentimes the 130 points spent on the support cavalry could be more efficiently spent on a stone thrower, more models in the big infantry block or a scrollcaddy.)

Wouldn't the interplay of small support units and big units be the most interesting combination, rather than either alone? And as for the value of cavalry that is what's being discussed right now so there is clearly no consensus on that opinion.


No one said that 7th ed panic/fear/terror/marchblock rules were great. just that re-rolls for everything make them pretty useless near the BSB. why even leave them in when it is highly improbable that they ever have any effect. It would have been much better to just tone down the effects of fear and terror.

I agree. That is a good criticism. But I don't understand why this issue could not have been brought fourth earlier. I also don't understand why the point was never elaborated on.


I don't think that new armybooks could change anything. it should never lie with the armybooks to correct bad design in the BRB. 50%+ of armybooks will always be of another edition and the BRB-designer has to take that into consideration. (unless GW totally changes its way of releasing ABs)

Your assuming that the problems mentioned here are solely the responsibility of the BRB. Don't you think that many of the problems are because of the old army books? You don't think that Skaven Slaves are partly responsible for the Steadfast debate? You don't think the old costs of cavalry and war machines are partly responsible for their place in the debate? You don't think that the Book of Hoeth and Cupped Hands have an impact on the magic system? True that might not the the case, bit it is still worth considering.

Captainbastard
19-02-2011, 00:22
Tbh the "epic" battles kinda ruined the trilogy for me. I loved the first film, 'cause the cast was running around like some DnD party and it was more of an adventure than anything. The 2nd and 3rd films were dominated by CGI battles, with Legolas skateboarding on a shield, ridiculous cavalry charges, etc, they just didn't come off as anything more than action flicks in a fantasy setting, with little importance placed on the main characters. Not to mention the trilogy rarely gave me any sense of anxiety or tension, as the good guys basically just breezed through everything and the orcs, despite having planning, equipment, numbers and training on their side, couldn't accomplish anything. And then we get into the generously applied deus ex machina...

But this tangent is off-topic, so I will stop. Anyways, whatever your point is, you aren't going to convince me by making a forced reference to the LotR movies.

Edit: Just a quick other tangent I thought of: Army of Darkness. It's climax was 60 men (of which only 10 or so were on screen at a time) defending some castle, and it was awesome :D I like both large and small scale battles in fantasy/pseudo-historical films, it really depends on their execution more than my preference. But again, this doesn't really relate to warhammer, since films are a much different form of entertainment than miniature war games :P

Army of darkness looks like an epic compared with most 7th ed Vampire armies.

If people really want to play a game with about 15 elite men why play warhammer? The guys who invented warhammer would shudder if they saw such armies.

dinobot
19-02-2011, 00:28
But then why do such units as cavalry, elite infantry and the like value it so much. That was my point. Big blocks of infantry maybe don't value it much, but any elite unit going up against any other unit does. So initiative is still a useful stat for a good portion of units. If anything it is more important for these units because chargers no longer strike first. The question of how much more important (for these particular units) is dependent on opinion and the unit in question.

Large blocks of core and special infantry make up the majority of armies now, and they benefit from the step-up rule. The step-up rule minimizes the importance of initiative, and so overall initiative is less important than in 7th, even though there are some units that still value it highly.


While it is true that MSU play-styles did have a lot of flexibility and versatility but most of that came not from tactical principles but from the Movement statistic and often the special make up of the armies that used it. What armies used these play-styles? Elves? Bretonnians? Cavalry based lists? Wood Elf Skirmisher based lists? Does anyone remember fighting Wood Elf skirmishers in 6th? Back when Skirmishers could not be march blocked. It would turn into a nightmare. Get close and they flee. There is almost no downside to fleeing for such troops so the choice is often a no-brainer. I guess that's my point is that there was no real trade off for doing MSU. You could hit everything, dance, flee, kick ass. There was no trade off in decision making that marks a strong aspect of tactics. Just look at the armies and the units that used to do this and ask: Why don't XXX do that? Why don't Dwarves play MSU? Are Dwarf Players tactically stupid? Or is (was) their play-style more because they have M 3?

The trade-off would be opportunity cost. If your knights are attacking archers, then they aren't assisting your main battle line, and so there's a decision to be made: what's the more beneficial move for the knights to make.

Also what do you mean by "tactical principles" and "a strong aspect of tactics"? Those sound like empty buzz words to me.

Also you don't appear to be distinguishing 'tactics' from 'strategy'. Choosing small units over large units is an aspect of strategy, not tactics, and so it's not necessarily relevant to our discussion regarding tactics.


But isn't the interaction between big units? An individual big block may be rigid, but that has always been the case. It's the same with small blocks. A small block still has most of the traits it used to. I would say that seeing the two different types interacting together rather than either or would be the best situation. MSU has its faults, such as it's restriction to certain armies, its own easy of use and the lack of tactical trade offs and the like. But I think that this issue is best debated properly and seperate from the other issues as it is quite complex and includes area's of high subjectivity. Do you agree? If so perhaps this should be debated elsewhere.

No I don't agree, the awnser is simple. Infantry is limited in what it can do, due to it's low movement characteristic and large size. Due to this poor mobility, infantry units do not have as many options open to them, and thus they end up making less decisions. Less variables = more repetition.


Infantry may have been buffed too far, but how far is too far?

I can't speak for warmbloodedlizard, but for me it's gone "too far" in the sense that the dominance of large infantry blocks has diminished the amount of tactical decisions available, to the point where games are noticeably repetitive.



Why couldn't something this specific be included earlier?

When I wrote the initial summary I felt it was obvious.


The truth is I can't back up my statement. I always used Tlos, and my friends always did, but I can't speak for anyone else. It was a suspicion I had but I still wonder about it.

As far as I know, most people used fairly small hills as they were easier to position units on. Buildings were more diverse, don't think there's any obvious prevelance of a certain size used.


Oh sure. The movement stat is less important. But I though I was talking about Movement in general such as positioning and the like. If I misread a post than I apologies now. But as I noted before High Movement was often so much of an innate advantage that for many units it essentially rendered tactics obsolete because there were few serious tactical trade offs. For example a unit of cavalry could charge most infantry units with impunity because (depending on the unit) it would almost certainly win combat. This means that the position of units supporting that infantry unit are often irrelevant. On the other hand in 8th the position of those units is now important because the Knights probably won't blow through that infantry unit in a single turn and now the player has to be aware of who will flank his/her unit and how to stop it. But that's just how I see it.


We've established that knights needed nerfing, the issue is that they went too far in nerfing them. Also this is relevant to your contentions over cavalry, not so much to your contention over movement.


Wouldn't the interplay of small support units and big units be the most interesting combination, rather than either alone?

Not necessarily, you haven't exactly put forth any arguments to convince us of this


I agree. That is a good criticism. But I don't understand why this issue could not have been brought fourth earlier. I also don't understand why the point was never elaborated on.

When I wrote the initial summary I felt it was obvious.


Your assuming that the problems mentioned here are solely the responsibility of the BRB. Don't you think that many of the problems are because of the old army books? You don't think that Skaven Slaves are partly responsible for the Steadfast debate? You don't think the old costs of cavalry and war machines are partly responsible for their place in the debate? You don't think that the Book of Hoeth and Cupped Hands have an impact on the magic system? True that might not the the case, bit it is still worth considering.

We aren't discussing the merits of the BRB alone, as that's pointless. We're discussing it's impact on the hobby, and it's relationship with existing army books is prudent to that. GW could've handled it better, either by updating the army books via the BRB's reference section or PDF's, not making such drastic changes in the first place, or simply updating the army books in a more efficient manner. Forthermore there are problems associated solely with the BRB; mainly the magic.

dinobot
19-02-2011, 00:29
Army of darkness looks like an epic compared with most 7th ed Vampire armies.

If people really want to play a game with about 15 elite men why play warhammer? The guys who invented warhammer would shudder if they saw such armies.



I've never played a 2,000+ point game with 15 men.

Edit: also the undead army in AoD is smaller than my VC army.

Captainbastard
19-02-2011, 00:39
I've never played a 2,000+ point game with 15 men.

Edit: also the undead army in AoD is smaller than my VC army.

When you say "bigger" you mean it has a couple of monsters in it that are the size of the whole army.

Also, why do VC players talk about their "armies," when they simply mean their unit of knights?

herohammer
19-02-2011, 01:02
I had a 4 model chaos warriors list in 6th edition... this thread has kind of gone off topic though it seems.

dinobot
19-02-2011, 01:06
I had a 4 model chaos warriors list in 6th edition... this thread has kind of gone off topic though it seems.

It's still on-topic. Some posts are a bit random, but overall there's lots of discussion related to the topic title.

WarmbloodedLizard
19-02-2011, 02:50
te Why couldn't something this specific be included earlier? [and rest of post]

8th ed criticism has been discussed on the forums quite a lot and in depth, so it could be assumed that everyone more or less understood what the aspects and bulletpoints were.

also formulating something very specific is very time consuming and I don't want to waste time on something that most people already know. simplified blanket statements just make everything less wordy while still easy to understand (unless the reader just doesn't want to understand/is not well informed about the topic/wants to argue semantics just for fun)

R Man
20-02-2011, 07:57
Large blocks of core and special infantry make up the majority of armies now, and they benefit from the step-up rule. The step-up rule minimizes the importance of initiative, and so overall initiative is less important than in 7th, even though there are some units that still value it highly.

They may benefit from the step up rule, but that doesn't mean that initiative is not an important or even handy stat for these units to have. To actually find out if this is true would take battle reports to actually find out what part in the battle initiative played. That would actually be a good way to examine this question actually for both sides of the argument.


The trade-off would be opportunity cost. If your knights are attacking archers, then they aren't assisting your main battle line, and so there's a decision to be made: what's the more beneficial move for the knights to make.

Your assuming that the situation in question actually has times when there is an opportunity cost. I would admit that this would happen quite often. But often there are also times when there is no real penalty, opportunity cost or hard decision to make. Remember I'm not saying MSU is not valid, just that it's not innately tactical by virtue of being MSU. It depends on how it is used.


Also what do you mean by "tactical principles" and "a strong aspect of tactics"? Those sound like empty buzz words to me.

It is something that is ill-defined as a concept. But what I mean is that if a player sets out to achieve something, say baiting a particular unit, his success should be based on his use of positioning and units in combination. Now this is what most people do anyway. The problem is that some armies had such an innate advantage at doing things like this that the Move Stat or certain special rules the actual difficulty of pulling of the task was disproportionate to the impact. Perhaps the best example I can give is 6th edition Wood Elf Way watchers. Their special rules allowed them to be placed directly behind an enemies battle line. Because Way watchers were deployed last they could then stall an entire battle line. Worse, in 6th edition they couldn't be marched blocked so they could easily move away from turning units. Since they can move 5 and shoot without penalty they can follow your units keeping them blocked while constantly killing. In truth, the idea is superb, but is execution is easy because of mechanics.


Also you don't appear to be distinguishing 'tactics' from 'strategy'. Choosing small units over large units is an aspect of strategy, not tactics, and so it's not necessarily relevant to our discussion regarding tactics.

Are we talking about definitions in the context of warhammer or of the real world? Either way they inform each other.


No I don't agree, the awnser is simple. Infantry is limited in what it can do, due to it's low movement characteristic and large size. Due to this poor mobility, infantry units do not have as many options open to them, and thus they end up making less decisions. Less variables = more repetition.

I actually agree with this point. However, I have to ask. Is this really an 8th edition problem? After all 8th has done much to aid in the movement ability of infantry through the use of Swift Reforms, more resistance to march blocking and greater charge distances. So options for infantry have greatly improved over their 7th edition counter parts. The question then becomes does the increase in mobility for infantry compensate for the reduction in support units? That question is probably un-answerable.


I can't speak for warmbloodedlizard, but for me it's gone "too far" in the sense that the dominance of large infantry blocks has diminished the amount of tactical decisions available, to the point where games are noticeably repetitive.


Then I guess for you it is true. But perhaps It might help to know what kind of armies you fight against? This may help give context to your situation.


We've established that knights needed nerfing, the issue is that they went too far in nerfing them. Also this is relevant to your contentions over cavalry, not so much to your contention over movement.


Well one of the reasons that Knights were considered so powerful was because of their movement.


Not necessarily, you haven't exactly put forth any arguments to convince us of this

True. It's not really an argument its more of an idea.


When I wrote the initial summary I felt it was obvious.

The large debate that has followed suggests that it wasn't. Being more specific or giving examples would have helped.


We aren't discussing the merits of the BRB alone, as that's pointless. We're discussing it's impact on the hobby, and it's relationship with existing army books is prudent to that. GW could've handled it better, either by updating the army books via the BRB's reference section or PDF's, not making such drastic changes in the first place, or simply updating the army books in a more efficient manner. Forthermore there are problems associated solely with the BRB; mainly the magic.

Good. Just one question. When you say 'magic' do you mean the system, the spells, or both?


8th ed criticism has been discussed on the forums quite a lot and in depth, so it could be assumed that everyone more or less understood what the aspects and bulletpoints were.

But we still need to know which specific parts of those criticisms are being objected too. Not every critic criticizes the same thing.


also formulating something very specific is very time consuming and I don't want to waste time on something that most people already know. simplified blanket statements just make everything less wordy while still easy to understand (unless the reader just doesn't want to understand/is not well informed about the topic/wants to argue semantics just for fun)

A little bit of explanation saves on confusion in the long run. A point may need more effort if description and examples are included, but if done well they need not be too long and getting everyone onto the focal point of the issue helps keep out irrelevant detail.