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.

I heard a rumor that we no longer have pivoting, movement profiles, and that we only would get three types of formations.
What do you all think of this?

No more movement profiles? Like no more M value? I cannot see this happening. The M value is central to Fantasy and I think the game would suffer greatly from its exclusion.

By Pivoting do you mean reforming to face a different direction? Again I cannot see this going away, there is already a penalty for it.

Not sure what you mean by three types of formations, could you elaborate?

The only thing I could see with movement profiles is that each unit type (infantry/cav) would have a set movement. But I don't see what that buys you. The cost of a fast unit is part of its profile compared to a slow unit.

The game doesn't work without pivoting of some kind, otherwise you just blunder forward. If you're not aligned from the start, it won't work.

*As for formations. I could see that. Something like horde. MI/MC (3 frontage). Or standard 5. Something like you only need to ever have 3 movement trays and they will fit any army. But...


I can see them wanting to make the game simpler. So as to make entry into the game less difficult for new players. But I think so many people like that it is a more complicated 40K. You would have to replace all the people you lose if you dumb down the game.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
But I think so many people like that it is a more complicated 40K. You would have to replace all the people you lose if you dumb down the game.

Agreed. I came to fantasy from 40k because I noticed a better quality of players. They thought more tactically & planned out turns in advance. If someone cried something was OP they didn't just hop on & agree they researched effective counters then explained them, well except for Beasts of Nurgle .

I like the more complicated game as it makes decisions all the more important & meaningful. It also feels like a battle not just a shoot out.

No movement, only shooting and magic. My Empire will pwn you buahahahahaha!

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
But I think so many people like that it is a more complicated 40K. You would have to replace all the people you lose if you dumb down the game.

Agreed. I came to fantasy from 40k because I noticed a better quality of players. They thought more tactically & planned out turns in advance. If someone cried something was OP they didn't just hop on & agree they researched effective counters then explained them, well except for Beasts of Nurgle .

I like the more complicated game as it makes decisions all the more important & meaningful. It also feels like a battle not just a shoot out.

Further agreed. I liked 7th better than 8th because the Movement phase was super important. The simplified charge rules (as well as steadfast and changes to rank-denial) lessened the impact the movement phase had on the game. Big units used to get punished for being out of position. Now, big units are TOO powerful, IMHO.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Further agreed. I liked 7th better than 8th because the Movement phase was super important. The simplified charge rules (as well as steadfast and changes to rank-denial) lessened the impact the movement phase had on the game. Big units used to get punished for being out of position. Now, big units are TOO powerful, IMHO.

Save that most infantry is crap, and can't do much more than tarpit against monsters and units with 1+ saves. I think steadfast is a little too powerful still, and needs more counters, but I like the role it's given to big units of infantry.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Further agreed. I liked 7th better than 8th because the Movement phase was super important. The simplified charge rules (as well as steadfast and changes to rank-denial) lessened the impact the movement phase had on the game. Big units used to get punished for being out of position. Now, big units are TOO powerful, IMHO.

Save that most infantry is crap, and can't do much more than tarpit against monsters and units with 1+ saves. I think steadfast is a little too powerful still, and needs more counters, but I like the role it's given to big units of infantry.

I think my fix would to change stubborn (and steadfast) back, so that you could only be stubborn on your own leadership, rather than the general's. Otherwise, EVERYONE is stubborn on Leadership 9 or 10 with a BSB reroll. If goblins want to be stubborn on their leadership of 6, let 'em.

how about some steadfast modifiers:
If opponent causes fear -1 (And you don't)
Terror -2 (and you don't, if you cause fear treat terror as fear so -1)
Cav charged -1
Cav charged flank -2
cav charged rear -3
defending high ground or obstacle +1

So all MC will be a -2 when charging a non fear causing opponent. Obviously a shrieking blade or Eeeeee! would be come commonplace, but that's still changing strategies.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Further agreed. I liked 7th better than 8th because the Movement phase was super important. The simplified charge rules (as well as steadfast and changes to rank-denial) lessened the impact the movement phase had on the game. Big units used to get punished for being out of position. Now, big units are TOO powerful, IMHO.

Save that most infantry is crap, and can't do much more than tarpit against monsters and units with 1+ saves. I think steadfast is a little too powerful still, and needs more counters, but I like the role it's given to big units of infantry.

I think my fix would to change stubborn (and steadfast) back, so that you could only be stubborn on your own leadership, rather than the general's. Otherwise, EVERYONE is stubborn on Leadership 9 or 10 with a BSB reroll. If goblins want to be stubborn on their leadership of 6, let 'em.

I like that idea a lot. Everything getting IP/BSB rerolls is kind of ridiculous especially for armies like Skaven.

Yes and no
In the current state steadfast is too good, just like attaking on 3 ranks and having 6 attacks per model is too good
The number of models removed per CC phase needs to be balanced by units that won't budge leadership-wise
Or simply rebalance so that you don't throw a silly number of attacks around, with a good chunk of them having re-rolls because "they're worth it"
Removing the general/BSB part for Steadfast units invalidates half of the models in the whole range (all light infantry) while it makes good monsters / MC / chariot spam even better than they are at the moment

How about units with an equal or greater Rank BONUS are steadfast.
If both sides have 4 ranks (+3 bonus) then both are steadfast until somebody grinds the other down.
If one get gets flanked and has it's ranks stripped, it loses steadfast.

I miss the value of flanking that 5th, 6th and 7th edition had.
It's good in 8th, but not good enough.

-Matt

That right there would be all it would take. Not even a new rule, just an Erratta to insert that single word into the current rule.

Steadfast should either be:
I) canceled out by rear/flank charge
II) only takes out the wound points of combat res and perhaps magical means (ie war banner), so only bsb, ranks, standard
charging etc. affect the steadfast test

Concerning the movement issue, I have already stated I will perform acts of violence upon GW HQ if they were to change anything to make it more like 40k.


Grrr..

If we're starting this, Steadfast should be done so that you can claim the reroll on your innate stubborn LD value, or use the IP, but suffer the penalties of the CR.