PDA

View Full Version : Where is Alessio taking Fantasy?



Bingo the Fun Monkey
30-04-2007, 11:04
Well, Mr. Pirinen carried the torch through most of 5th, and was followed by Loremaster Gav's obsession with emphasis on "core" troops in 6th (I found his 3rd Ed Eldar Codex review to be very illuminating to his philosophy as a games designer). Now it seems as if Alessio Cavatore, notorious for theme-heavy but highly abusable armies, is heading us up in 7th edition. From the Empire and Orcs and Goblins book, what can be gleaned about his particular "vision" for the future development of Warhammer?

Nkari
30-04-2007, 12:00
Undead will rule them all. :) no seriously, you cant judge much from just 1 book.. .. =)

Nazguire
30-04-2007, 12:09
I'm all for theme heavy, interesting armies with fun rules that are there for fun's sake. I'm a fan of the Skaven list (yes, it's abusable. But most of its rules, items and unit choices are very theme heavy and fun to use).

As long as the army books don't go the way of 40k codecies I'm happy:D

Harry
30-04-2007, 12:38
Has Gav gone somewhere?
Allesio is not new to Fantasy army books?
I think Adam Troke will have a little bit to do with the High Elf Army book.

I think they are trying to come up with lists that allow us to theme our armies without the theme being cumpulsory, obvious or restrictive.

I think they are trying to come up with less abusable lists with the obvious abusable elements changed and even if taken to extreems and you try to abuse them they still remain balanced. (or with balancing weaknesses).

This is obviously a huge ask to allow maximum freedom and retain maximum balance. Good Luck to them.

Asrai Wraith
30-04-2007, 21:18
Abusable?
How can this be? The word doesn't even exist. lol
A list which is legal cannot be abuse. A list which is illegal simply cannot be used and causes no problems.

If Alessio and Gav feel that some lists should not be used, then quite simply the lists should have been prohibited during play tests using appropriate rules modifications etc.

This is the area where I feel GW falls short in competence. As soon as an army book is released, club players can determine the strengths and weaknesses of combinations which could be unfair, quite easily and quickly.

Why haven't the play testers expose these inadequacies? From what I've been told from one play tester, suggested changes they have made were ignored by GW.

Solution: Try the alternative Fantasy lists - Warhammer New Era - found on the second page of Warseer Home page.:D

lokigod
30-04-2007, 21:24
abuseable hmm ld 10 skaven....... ld 7 general with 3 ranks.... take that terror or fear... very unfluffy. when you take a low leadership or definite flight instead of fight type race and make them immune to a bloodthirster. fluff = bad game rules

His skaven book was broken, and still is in many ways. No race should be good at all things and the skaven can dominate all of them. Any way races can be broken for many reasons, but I feel this one was broken because they let a tournament player desighn the book of the army he played. So in reality I hope he doesnt get hold of a whole 7th eddition. my two cents though.........

Bretagne
30-04-2007, 21:41
as a fellow swarthy-haired olive picker, i feel that Alessio's vision is one of great promise. army lists with such obvious strengths (empire, orcs, skaven) entice the "gamer" in all of us. however, they are very versatile and in no stretch of the imagination one trick ponies.

Unclejo
30-04-2007, 21:48
abuseable hmm ld 10 skaven....... ld 7 general with 3 ranks.... take that terror or fear... very unfluffy. when you take a low leadership or definite flight instead of fight type race and make them immune to a bloodthirster. fluff = bad game rules

You do realise that Skaven leadership has been this way since the venerable 1993 Warhammer Armies Skaven and maybe even farther back?

So if were hating on someone for designing the Skavens high leadership when ranked, start building effigys of Andy Chambers...

lokigod
30-04-2007, 23:06
cool, did not know about the leadership thing. How about the whole SAD issue?

Archaon
01-05-2007, 00:37
Well that was a pure ****up by Alessio i'm afraid..

He's the type of friendly gamers who makes fluffy lists and wanted some cool stuff for the army. Sadly many gamers are not that friendly and will maximize the potential because they only get enjoyment from the game when they win.

GW needs to finally admit that there are two types of gamers.. the friendly gamers and the competitive ones. Mixing these two (which happens a lot) results in one disgruntled gamers.
They need to severely tighten up the rules and playtesting.. build up a core of outward playtester who know the game and let them poke holes in the armylist, take their advice and remove the worst prior to releasing the book.

Bloodknight
01-05-2007, 00:55
Agreed. His biggest mistake was to invent the ratling guns (which thankfully have been neutered by the new targeting rules) or at least the way they work.

violenceha
01-05-2007, 01:12
Agreed. His biggest mistake was to invent the ratling guns (which thankfully have been neutered by the new targeting rules) or at least the way they work.
Actually, Andy C mentioned 2 rat gatling teams way back in white dwarf 137.

Bloodknight
01-05-2007, 01:22
The 5th edition book didnīt have them, though.Thatīs what I meant - giving them rules, especially the rules they got was a mistake, even if he didnīt invent the concept.

On behalf of a friend who has got 4 Doomwheels I am also not a big fan of the fact that he left them out.

Goldenwolf
01-05-2007, 01:30
I think it is a mistake to generic the armies. Blending VC into a build your own vampire and rules will mean that it will boil down to 2-3 good combos, and other people taking background driven armies.

When they redo the VC book, they should just alter the Lahmian and Necro lists to give them a little more ummph. Instead they will redesign the entire army book, and generalize what was some nice choices.

They attempted to do the same things with Eldar in 40K, and I did not like what they did. Having a themed army, and working around the limitations in it was fun. Having everyone who takes a race have a very similar list is boring. I also remember when they put DOW in for people who bitched about army limitations, and most people don't use the DOW units because it does make for power gaming.

The problem is, is that they see Fantasy as a problem at the moment. Stop work on that piece of crap LOTR game, and put those designers into fantasy.

violenceha
01-05-2007, 01:36
I don't mind if the army books become more generic as long as there are also white dwarf articles giving rules for themed armies. I loved the clan moulder WD list, it was great fun, though if the dwarf, orc and goblin and empire releases are anything to go by, looks like they are a thing of the past.
Allessio writes fun stuff and i play for fun, but I think at the end of the day, it's the tourney players they cater for.

Harry
01-05-2007, 06:13
Alessio is the first to admit there are some problems with the Skaven book.
I am sure he would (Skitter)leap at the chance to have another go at it and make improvements based on all the experience he has now.
The doomwheel was left out because they were trying to remove some of the comedy elements and they thought the whole 'exercise wheel' was just a step too far. Alessio is well aware that the ratling guns are a little 'too much'.

Alessio is not the man he was when he first arrived on the warhammer scene. There is a big 'power gaming' thing going on in Italy. Alessio arrived here as a full on power gamer and it was not until he came here that he realy discovered that there was a whole bunch of people who were background, narrative driven who played the game and weren't actually that bothered if they won or lost. I think increasingly he would not like to think of himself as a power gamer. This realisation and change in attitude torward the game is reflected in his work. I think if he wrote the Skaven book today he would write a very different book. I think if you look at many of the books he has been involved in since the Skaven book you will see that he did not repeat the mistakes of the Skaven book.

forgottenlor
01-05-2007, 08:33
I actually think Alessio's books are my favorite. Not because I always need to win, but because they allow a lot of fun combos and ability to try out new things. Also, if you take out the ratling gun, Skaven no longer dominate shooting. They also are't the hardest hitting army, unless you consider rat ogres and censer bearers to be super. How may skaven units have an armour save? Also none of your skirmishers, Rat ogres, et. benefit from the leadership rule. I think he did an awesome job with Tomb kings and Vampire. I don't think these are considered abusive lists. They certainly aren't Brettonians or wood elves.
I think to changes in the 7th are the limiting of unbreakable units and strengthening infantry over clavary. Personally I like these changes.

the1stpip
01-05-2007, 12:44
I hate Alessio.

Oh, you want a reason? Fine. When he was redesigning the 7th ed rulebook, and changed ranks from four to five strong, he says the Beastmen Raiders rule means they are at a disadvantage.

Why? Could he not say simply, they now rank up five wide. It seems he has some serious issues with certain races.

We will probably end up with a generic hum,an race, gebneric elves, dwarfs, orcs, generic undead and skaven as armies to choose from...

(Not entirely serious here, btw, just some good old fashioned ranting).

DeathlessDraich
01-05-2007, 13:56
as a fellow swarthy-haired olive picker, i feel that Alessio's vision is one of great promise. army lists with such obvious strengths (empire, orcs, skaven) entice the "gamer" in all of us. however, they are very versatile and in no stretch of the imagination one trick ponies.

How much did he pay you to write this? :p


Well that was a pure ****up by Alessio i'm afraid..



cool, did not know about the leadership thing. How about the whole SAD issue?

Why is Skaven being singled out? One army is not the issue. Skaven in itself is not a problem but how it compares with *all* the other armies.
3 Wood Elf armies were in the top 5 in one of the largest tournaments last year.
Only 1 Skaven army was in the top 10 and this army used 2 Ratling guns.
Lizardmen armies tend to feature in the top 5 in many tournaments and so do VC.
Very few complaints have been made against them. Balance is the key**

1) I personally would play against any army, overpowered or not.

2) I don't want to sound critical and please don't take this personally but players should stop screaming 'cheese' [a meaningles term in my opinion] at every opportunity. Those who complain of 'broken' armies and 'cheese' too frequently have also placed winning before enjoyment.

What should be important for the writers of army books writers is a willingness to change the book after playtesting.

**Balance between armies is more important than balance within an army.

In my opinion, there have been recent failures in army books which could have redressed this balance:

A) Orcs and Goblins - the latest version still does not bring them on par with LM or WE
B) Latest version of Empire is stronger but possibly needs a slight tweak.
C) WE, although still regarded as very strong or even too strong but I think they are overall slightly weaker than previous editions.
D) DE and HE need to be strengthened in the next version.

Dwarves seem to be okay but stil not tournament winners and I'm not sure how this can be done.


Alessio is the first to admit there are some problems with the Skaven book.
I am sure he would (Skitter)leap at the chance to have another go at it and make improvements based on all the experience he has now.
The doomwheel was left out because they were trying to remove some of the comedy elements and they thought the whole 'exercise wheel' was just a step too far. Alessio is well aware that the ratling guns are a little 'too much'.

I think if he wrote the Skaven book today he would write a very different book. I think if you look at many of the books he has been involved in since the Skaven book you will see that he did not repeat the mistakes of the Skaven book.

Same writer = same mistakes probably. :p
I'm not particularly impressed by the latest army books.
I think the writers need to be more receptive to the general opinions of players in establishing the necessary inter-army balance.

Holy Crap! Manticores!
01-05-2007, 14:16
You guys might want to look at the credits in your army books again... these are by and large group efforts, regardless of who gets top billing. It's easy to slag Gav or Alessio becuase they're the "big name" at the moment, but essentially a design TEAM comes up with the final consensus as seen in your army book.

As far as the Beastmen Raiders rule, you know what, it would take them 10 minutes to come up with a FAQ to fix that... althugh I'd argue that one isn't really needed, if you re-read the rules for charging Skirmishers. The only reason you would 'normally' line up less than 4 wide is because you don't have enough models within charging distance. If anything, the rule-as-written could set up beastherds to abuse the charging rules. (I'm thinking a smallish-500pts or so-game, where 2 models=1/4 of the unit-per requirement are able to charge, and then the beastmen line up 4 wide, because of the rule.

If anything, I was impressed with 7th in the sense that left pretty much everything that worked in 6th untouched. If you played 6th, 7th isn't really that big a step. Of course, if Alessio is personally responsible for the abomination that is the Lore of Shadows, that's a definite strike against.

Rider-Of-Kurnous
02-05-2007, 20:09
I dont like the thing about taking out the "ask your opponents permission" on special characters that they are doing in the new army books. In my oppinion most are too powerful e.g. grimgor, drycha

rockforchumps
02-05-2007, 21:48
Lol. HE are the army that needs ANY upgrades. The dwarves with their guns and the empire with their... everything can wait. HE players are subjected to severe flaws in the army book, flaws that need immediate attention. The new Army book is scheduled for between october and december (November?) But honestly, it can't come out soon enough. and it BETTER bring some real fixes to HE.

And could you explain how the Beastmen raiders rule is a disadvantage again?

Skitter-Squeek
03-05-2007, 08:10
Ugg Leave My skaven Alone!:mad:



Seriously They did not have to be singled out. There is at least one or two things with every army that someone is going to cry about. I for one look forward sort of:confused: to the new Skaven Book down the road, and stop complaining about leadership 10. All you gotta do is kill that one unit the genral is with and then the whole army is leadership 5. Not to mention if they have a warlord in the army then that means you aren't facing a Grey Seer.





Skitter Squeek

Fredrik
03-05-2007, 15:13
The beastherds are at an disadvatage because they line up 4 wide when you ned 5 wide to get ranks. This meens effectivly that anything (chariot, ridden monster etc) can charge any beastherd no matter how big and smack the begeesus out of them with little effort since they donīt get ranks.

Thus you can take away a beast armies fixed CR by going herd hunting with fast hardhitting thing.

I also belive that much can be learned by looking at past mistakes, skaven,WE, brettonia not to cry cheese but to get an idea of what whent wrong when writing the books.

Sanjuro
08-05-2007, 18:03
As far as the Beastmen Raiders rule, you know what, it would take them 10 minutes to come up with a FAQ to fix that... althugh I'd argue that one isn't really needed, if you re-read the rules for charging Skirmishers. The only reason you would 'normally' line up less than 4 wide is because you don't have enough models within charging distance. If anything, the rule-as-written could set up beastherds to abuse the charging rules. (I'm thinking a smallish-500pts or so-game, where 2 models=1/4 of the unit-per requirement are able to charge, and then the beastmen line up 4 wide, because of the rule.


Charged by a monster/chariot. 4 wide. No ranks.

Grimtuff
08-05-2007, 19:27
. In my oppinion most are too powerful e.g. grimgor, drycha

Grimgor, overpowered? Are you having a laugh?

He's a M4 infantry model more than likely in a unit. Piece of cake to avoid if need be.