Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As in 40k5 and the shift to Troops as Scoring, my basic expectation is that NONE of the current "competitive" armies can meet that requirement, and that all armies would have to re-tool significantly to incorporate large Core units or large block infantry.

That is why it needs to be system-wide, rulebook change, rather than something that is left up to the player or army books. US20+ Core, or US20+ non-missile block.

I'd really prefer it if they didn't go down that route for fantasy.

Minsc wrote:

The Crippler wrote:I know it's silly, since there isn't necessarily any correlation between the photography and any implied rules, BUT, one of the things that jumped out at me in the ads for the new book was a shot of plague monks deployed 8-wide. That's just stupid in the current environment. It's not stupid if having a wider frontage counts for combat resolution.

It's stupid in which manner, if you don't mind me asking? An eight-wide front means that against anything that is not a ≤4 25mm model / ≤5 20mm model unit, all models get to attack. You also are increasing the number of attacks you can make in the off chance of being charged. Is there some inherent flaw I'm missing in maximizing frontage?

Because 8-wide plague monks are paying way too many points for extra potential combat res. vs. the guaranteed combat res. of a smaller, deeper block. .. and by potential I mean potential only vs. low T and low AS targets.

The Crippler wrote:I know it's silly, since there isn't necessarily any correlation between the photography and any implied rules, BUT, one of the things that jumped out at me in the ads for the new book was a shot of plague monks deployed 8-wide.

Hmm.. good spot...

That's just stupid in the current environment. It's not stupid if having a wider frontage counts for combat resolution.

Indeed. Or if it, maybe, was to have other direct affects perhaps.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
That is why it needs to be system-wide, rulebook change, rather than something that is left up to the player or army books. US20+ Core, or US20+ non-missile block.

US20+ is pushing it. US10 as a minimum size sounds much more likely (when it drops below US10 it doesn't score anymore), and although many tournaments have used the non-missile block restrictions you mentioned I can't see GW using it. My guess would be US10+ core units that are the type that they count towards the minimum core units of the army. Allowing scoring units to come from any force organisation would be a change of sorts, but it wouldn't make core units core, and I'm pretty sure that's the idea.

I agree that none of the established army lists of today will continue to succeed if the game moves towards core units and objectives. This alone will be a huge financial motivator for GW to implement the changes. Fact just is that Warhammer has become totally slowed monster & cavalry hammer, and the changes that I've been speculating about are the easiest way to fix the game. The army books of today allow armies to consist nearly entire of monsters of doom, so unless every army book is changed we need to change the game so that the monster armies are undesirable.

US20+ starting strength is different from US10+ ending strength, but I could see that being done as well. The difference is that US20+ starting holds for any block infantry, and you just need to keep the Standard. US10+ could possibly require even larger blocks to account for getting whittled down via attrition.

In theory, allowing scoring of any type shouldn't be a problem - WFB pretends a system of rarity, not functional role.

The easy fix for Core is to require that #Core > # Special > # Rare. So if you want 2 Rares, you need 3+ Specials and 4+ Core. If you want 4 Specials, you need 5+ Core. That gets away from Core not being Core in a much simpler way. Sure, you can take Monsters / whatever, but you'll need filler units to make the Core.

But even then, the problem with your fix on only Core Scoring is that it probably accelerates the move to all-Cavalry, all-Skirmish Core.

Do you not believe that WFB should focus back on block infantry, instead of the current focus on anything but fighting block infantry?

I think Fantasy will stick with the VP's.

Objectives don't work too well in Fantasy, as certain unit have massive advantages compared to others, and not all forces can field decent numbers of Skirmishers.

I suspect we'll just be seeing a small tweaking here and there. Perhaps a sliding scale of outnumbering, to aid the squishy Gobbo's and Clanrats of the Old World, and other hordes. Pure speculation.

Maybe, to avoid forceing the game into an all-cav, al-skirmisher position, cavalry should loose the +1 Save bonus, or only get it first turn.

Also, allow infantry units to manouver as a charge reaction, as long as they are not already stuck in. Suddenly, one unit chargeing from the flank is no longer a death sentance.

Allow spears and Halbards to gain a +1S bonus against units where the individual models have a US greater than 1 chargeing in the front. Note that they do not get this bonus if they use the manouver option.

Lastly, I think that if you wanted to make the game core-centric, make it so that you cannot have more special and rare choices combined than core units.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Maybe, to avoid forceing the game into an all-cav, al-skirmisher position, cavalry should loose the +1 Save bonus, or only get it first turn.

No way. Doesn't make sense.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Also, allow infantry units to manouver as a charge reaction, as long as they are not already stuck in. Suddenly, one unit chargeing from the flank is no longer a death sentance.

Nope, that's what makes Fantasy so awesome. You get outmaneuvered, you deserve to get hammered.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Allow spears and Halbards to gain a +1S bonus against units where the individual models have a US greater than 1 chargeing in the front. Note that they do not get this bonus if they use the manouver option.

Huh?

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Lastly, I think that if you wanted to make the game core-centric, make it so that you cannot have more special and rare choices combined than core units.

This would not be feasible with some armies, such as High Elves, who were intentionally created that way. Plus, limiting special and rare choices is horrible from a financial stand point. The cool stuff comes with a price tag.

I dunno, I mean it certainly fits the four year cycle hypothesis, but to be honest I think 4e 40k went kaputz so fast because they just weren't doing a lot with it that was inspiring. The stuff they are putting out for 5th 40k and 7th Fantasy is really phenomenal, they have been firing on full cylinders for a couple years straight now. Not to mention Fantasy still has post-Skaven about 5 armies to go.

I'd also say that the four year cycle certainly fit their last business model, but they have really hammered out a pattern here that works and I think they will stick to it. But that is just speculation and opinion, obviously.

The possibility of a new edition is what has stopped me from buying army books and codices for the last couple years.

There should be only one change to the number required for ranks, and that is 3+ for 40mm bases. To help out Ogres.
They only went 5-wide because most boxes were 20man and 4 wide 5 deep looks funny.
I do think 25mm bases get screwed vs 20mm because of frontage issues. They should be able to be 4-wide.

I would like to see them adopt the Killpoint/army points method from Field of Glory. Each unit is worth 2pts. if you lose points equal to the number of units you have, you lose.
Games continue until someone reaches the break point.
That system lends itself well to battle lines and blocks. Of course WFB would have to modify this due to monsters and shooting ranges.

I think objective grabbing should be reserved for planned scenario play. Otherwise certain army matchups will be even more lopsided than currently.
Though an idea could be that each 2'x2' area is an objective. This would encourage the 6x4 table with a left-center-right. Something like the board for BattleLore.
This synergizes nicely with removal of Guess ranges and the modular table.
You would need at least 3 core/block choices to be able to claim your own and encourage more for taking the other side.

Oh, and another one, possibly ing at a new Scenario...

The Screaming Bell and Plague Furnace canno enter buildings, unless allowed to in a scenario.

Could just be a 'permission' to write your own scenarios, might be alluding to Sieges (where I suspect a Plague Furnace will come in flipping handy for knocking down Gates)

Whilst I remember...the Plague Claw and Warp Lightning Cannon count as destroyed should their crews flee/panic. Another potential tweak?

Maybe a change could be all boxsets include 5 multi part plastic models and then the rest are 2 part sculpts.. Because why the hell should I pay for 20 models when only 5 ever are seen or do anything?

30$ for +2 rank bonus woo thats awesome

I realize objectives are difficult in fantasy but I really think GW HAS to mix up the game.. Main reason I dont play fantasy is because of its total inability to play anything other than pitched battle

Kirasu wrote:Maybe a change could be all boxsets include 5 multi part plastic models and then the rest are 2 part sculpts.. Because why the hell should I pay for 20 models when only 5 ever are seen or do anything?

30$ for +2 rank bonus woo thats awesome

Many people do not like the monotony that 2 part sculpts bring, even in ranked units. I woundn't be opposed to it myself, though I do enjoy the variety. But don't make the mistake that GW would lower the prices just because they are 2 part sculpts. Not gonna happen. Did we even get much of a discount on those single pose starter boxes (for orks, chaos marines, and the like) released a little while ago?

Kirasu wrote:I realize objectives are difficult in fantasy but I really think GW HAS to mix up the game.. Main reason I dont play fantasy is because of its total inability to play anything other than pitched battle

I would love some scenario stuff. I understand the hesitancy though, when considering the movement capabilities of Dwarves or Tomb King skeletons. I wonder how giving race specific objectives would work. Roll a d6 and that is your objective, regardless of the objectives of your opponent. This way the objectives could be tailored to the armies instead of being generic and possibly impossible. Oh, to be young and full of hope.

Fantasy is a game of massed, ranked up battles. The fun is in trying to use the battlefield to your advantage, and denying it to your opponent, not to mention the clever use of the resources at your disposal.

Scenario play really is best off as player driven, rather than book driven. When you consider the 'more to it' movement rules, Fantasy has limited scope for 40k style objectives. Beyond 'mug the general, wedgie the wizards' it is difficult to come up with a balanced scenario.

The pitched battles come into their own with bonus VPs offered for specific activities, as this affects a players possible movements. Buildings are extremely potent things to hold these days, and some armies have greater ease exploiting this (like those with excellent skirmish troops) whilst others tend to struggle somewhat (Skaven and Chaos spring to mind).

If you wanted to run a scenario where victory depends less upon kicking your opponent in the Nads as hard as you can, then you need to mix up the ary lists in terms of force composition, ala Lord Of The Rings. Perhaps inventing a unit of Skirmisher, or allowing a regimented unit to Skirmish for that game only.

If you don't enjoy repeated pitched battles, then Fantasy is never going to be your game, because no matter how sneaky you get in a Campaign, or on the field, sooner or later it will all boil down to fisticuffs, which is entirely appropriate for the time period the game is set in.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Right now destroying units is 95% of the game, and therefore it's 95% of army design. Noone is saying the game should be altered so drastically that all of a sudden we'd be playing weird scenarios of 500 vs 2000 points or the other army deploying in the middle and the other surrounding it etc. I'm saying that whenever objectives are a larger part of the match the games are more interesting and most likely a lot more balanced.

Fantasy is a game of massed, ranked up battles

I guess you meant this as a joke.

I still just want a better Close Combat To Hit chart.

Therion wrote:Noone is saying the game should be altered so drastically that all of a sudden we'd be playing weird scenarios of 500 vs 2000 points or the other army deploying in the middle and the other surrounding it etc.

Huh?

There's both a 2:1 scenerio and a middle-of-board defender scenario in my hardback rulebook.

What game are you playing?

You should ask yourself that question. Have you ever seen anyone actually play those scenarios? At tournaments? Grand tournaments? Generally? The previous edition of 40K had 20 missions too that noone ever played. You seemed to have completely missed my point.

@Therion: what are these "tournaments" that you speak of?

Most games aren't tournaments, so why not have more interesting scenarios, purely for variety's sake, regardless of whether they're tournament-friendly?

These tournaments are obvioulsy very serious business.

Rated G wrote:These tournaments are obvioulsy very serious business.

You bet they are! In Finland it is tradition that the winner gets to go home with the loser's wife.

Often the battles become desperate struggles where both sides try their hardest not to win

So what happens in a draw?

I think that's best left unspoken.

hmmmm i hate how people hate 1 piece models the BFSP goblins have been some of my favorite ones yet

deffskullz wrote:hmmmm i hate how people hate 1 piece models the BFSP goblins have been some of my favorite ones yet

I agree. Fully ranked up, I think they look at least just as cool as an assembled regiment-box of Night Goblins, especially when you factor in time taken to assemble them.

the_trooper wrote:
Think there will be something in 8th ed requiring Ogres not to suck?

I hope this never happens. I have an ogre army that is built but unplayed because of sheer suckiness and I don't have time to play another game right now with my World Eater Tribe...

TBD wrote:

Rated G wrote:These tournaments are obvioulsy very serious business.

You bet they are! In Finland it is tradition that the winner gets to go home with the loser's wife.

Often the battles become desperate struggles where both sides try their hardest not to win

I actually laughed at that one.

TBD wrote:

Rated G wrote:These tournaments are obvioulsy very serious business.

You bet they are! In Finland it is tradition that the winner gets to go home with the loser's wife.

Often the battles become desperate struggles where both sides try their hardest not to win

lol wut?

I think the thing that will kill objectives in fantasy ends up being hte movement phase. The game is really about blocks of infantry, which unless they're lined up directly towards the objective, will take forever to wheel, move around, then try and get into combat with the enemy at the objective whose doing the same thing. 40k it's easier as you have 360 movement and fixed, unchanging distances (plus add in running). If it moved to the objective side, folks would simply load up on fast cav and run around the objectives so you couldn't catch them (as the infantry can't maneuver and get into combat with them).
Couple of things though which would be nice for 8th edition (some I've heard rumblings about already):

1. Spell lores redone to bring them inline with codex spells. Seriously, who takes Lore of Life?
2. Miscast table simplified (possibly nastier).
3. Spears/Halberd bonuses against cavalry (makes sense doesn't it?).
4. Fixing challenge rules
5. Eliminating partials
6. Eliminating the "free wheel"
7. Possibly set limits on each army comp section, i.e. no more than 25% on special, 20% on characters, etc. etc. Would be hard but interesting.