Just been reading a certain forthcoming Army Book for Fantasy, that may or may not be released in the next couple of squeaks.

And there are a few interesting things in it which I reckon might well be the shape of things to come.

For instance, Artillery. Both bits have a single combined Profile, ala a Chariot. Rather than randomise hits from shooting/ranged magic, you simply use the Artillery's toughness value. In HTH, you use the crews toughness. A single wound track is used, and once all wounds are gone (regardless of how they were inflicted) the whole shebang is removed.

Furthermore, it does indeed appear partial hits are going, which I for one am quite glad about, as they added a not entirely necessary extra roll when splatting stuff.

Am still digging my way through the book, and will report back should I spot any further possible inklings.

There has previously been slight murmurs about eight edition; that Army Book has caused them to grow louder. There are many claims that it is written with eighth edition in mind, due to points such as you raise. The rumour goes that eight edition is any time from the middle of 2010 to the middle of 2011.

I'd wager perhaps earlier.

Although seemingly minor, these do change game Dynamics somewhat (after all, no point in firing bows at Artillery now. S3 cannot wound T7!).

Also worth noting that the pieces of Artilery these rules currently apply to are T6...

Grots, ratillery has always been a little different, however this rules makes sense of artillery gets a T drop.

Orlanth wrote:Grots, ratillery has always been a little different, however this rules makes sense of artillery gets a T drop.

Actually the Skaven book doesn't imply that at all. For example, the Bell still has the ability that causes damage to all models with T7 or higher, which means war machines and war machines only. If the Skaven book was written with 8th edition in mind, which it of course should be as 8th edition is only a year away, I'd wager war machines will stay T7. The biggest changes I foresee coming are kill points, only core units counting as scoring, and 2 of the 3 missions being won solely through objectives, à la 40K.

Another edition? Already?! Gw take the piss, no wonder I gave up serious gaming.

Therion wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Grots, ratillery has always been a little different, however this rules makes sense of artillery gets a T drop.

Actually the Skaven book doesn't imply that at all. For example, the Bell still has the ability that causes damage to all models with T7 or higher, which means war machines and war machines only. If the Skaven book was written with 8th edition in mind, which it of course should be as 8th edition is only a year away, I'd wager war machines will stay T7. The biggest changes I foresee coming are kill points, only core units counting as scoring, and 2 of the 3 missions being won solely through objectives, à la 40K.

Do you really see WFB employing all of those '40K-style' rules?

To me, is just doesn't seem 'right', or to 'fit'...

Do you know something we don't?

Are you... in the know???

The UK GT circuit which is actually organised by GW itself at the Warhammer World has used the 40K-style kill point and mission system for two full seasons now IIRC. There's nothing wrong with it and this leads me to believe more changes like that are coming. Perhaps even a similar way of deployment and start of game.

There aren't many WHFB core rules that GW can or knows how to tweak for the better. It's the start of the game/victory conditions that will see the most changes. I'm fairly certain of it. Actually, making only US10+ core units with standard bearers scoring, and making missions heavily objective based and not so much based on killing units and gathering victory points is one of the easiest ways to push players off their 3x minimum core + tons of monsters & cavalry type armies.

The magic phase might see some changes as well, but considering how the army books support the current system I wouldn't predict any truly major changes. The changes might be tweaks akin to the ones we got for the current edition.

Warhammer is all about beers and a pitch battle with two forests, a hill and building of some sort. Maybe a few rocks for good measure not - UGH - objectives.

Maybe an 8th edition box set is going to be the big summer release. I'll wager Beastmen v. Empire.

Warhammer and Warhammer 40K are mostly about whatever the victory conditions say, and never ever have they been about beers. Not to my knowledge atleast and I've been playing these games for 18 years.

I don't see Fantasy moving away from pitched battles as the most common game. I hope they finally make a genuine attempt at adding some variety, but I don't foresee pitched battles being knocked off its throne. They will streamline rules; removing partials and combining artillery profiles are good examples. I hope they end up being true. There is a reason 40k and Fantasy exist, they are two separate systems. GW would be foolish to follow Therion's suggestions, as that would make the two systems too similar, for no good reason. Which means GW will probably do it.

Alpharius wrote:

Therion wrote:The biggest changes I foresee coming are kill points, only core units counting as scoring, and 2 of the 3 missions being won solely through objectives, à la 40K.

Do you really see WFB employing all of those '40K-style' rules?

I simply can't see WFB moving to Objectives - WFB has always been a VP game through and through. I can see GW moving the game to a more refined scoring of KPs (i.e. enemy killed + friendly saved), so if I kill 8/12 and save 3/8 I score 11/20 vs opponent killing 4/12 and saving 5/8 for only 9/20. Factor Bonus points for Quarters, Objectives and Generals and it's all good.

I can see Quarters and Objectives requiring Ranked Infantry with a Standard to hold - it'd give a nice boost to block Infantry that's been missing for quite a while. Letting any Core hold, means that light Cav, and other Skirmishers could hold and that doesn't feel right. Particularly when you consider Elite Infantry Specials like Greatswords and Stormvermin -- considering their cost, these units should definitely be able to hold (or at least Contest) Objectives. Similarly, not having a Standard feels wrong as well - if you literally plant a flag on the objective, then you've taken it. This will probably require a US minimum in addition to the Standard, to further encourage block infantry.

Removing the test for partials will probably carry from 40k, as it's simpler and faster in the same way that the Guess mechanic is gone, to be replaced by place and Scatter / Bounce. This also removes the problem of trying to range snipe over / through enemy units / large terrain.

Lastly, I wouldn't be surprised to see GW do something to revise rank & file requirements by base size. I'd suppose 7-wide for 20mm, 6-wide for 25mm, 4-wide for 40mm, and 3-wide for 50+mm (nominal 150mm rank), with +1/rank for 20-25mm (max +3) and +2/rank for 40+mm (max +2). Then, give static CR for unengaged Files to encourage formation width based on envelopment.

Anything that nerfs daemons would be a plus so war machines getting a bolster wouldn't be a bad thing.

Therion wrote:Warhammer and Warhammer 40K are mostly about whatever the victory conditions say, and never ever have they been about beers. Not to my knowledge atleast and I've been playing these games for 18 years.

Expand your knowledge. Have a beer.

Therion wrote:Actually, making only US10+ core units with standard bearers scoring, and making missions heavily objective based and not so much based on killing units and gathering victory points is one of the easiest ways to push players off their 3x minimum core + tons of monsters & cavalry type armies.

I'm just starting high elves, but only having large core units as scoring, when all of our units except for spearmen, archers, and lothern sea guard are no longer core... wouldn't seem to make any sense at all. Making it objectives based also seem to be too 40k to me... but then I'm just starting fantasy

Most 40K armies only have 1 or 2 troops choices, and some, like Necrons, only have one.

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.

Therion wrote:Warhammer and Warhammer 40K are mostly about whatever the victory conditions say, and never ever have they been about beers. Not to my knowledge atleast and I've been playing these games for 18 years.

In my club at least, not a single game goes by without the downing of at least 1 beer by 1 player. Usually much more...

Therion wrote:Warhammer and Warhammer 40K are mostly about whatever the victory conditions say, and never ever have they been about beers. Not to my knowledge atleast and I've been playing these games for 18 years.

Serious Business?

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

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Just been reading a certain forthcoming Army Book for Fantasy, that may or may not be released in the next couple of squeaks.

You really are a GW employee. It's up for pre-order and you still feel the need to keep it's name secret - tongue-in-cheek or otherwise...

Da Boss wrote:Most 40K armies only have 1 or 2 troops choices, and some, like Necrons, only have one.

This is true, but at least for high elves, if you take much more than the just the baseline mandatory (or maybe just a bit more than mandatory) core requirements, you are severely handicapped. For 40k, the basic rank-and-file troop squads seem to be more effective... but then again I'm just starting fantasy, so take my thoughts on it with a grain of salt

Mad Dog Grotnisk wrote:For instance, Artillery. Both bits have a single combined Profile, ala a Chariot. Rather than randomise hits from shooting/ranged magic, you simply use the Artillery's toughness value. In HTH, you use the crews toughness. A single wound track is used, and once all wounds are gone (regardless of how they were inflicted) the whole shebang is removed.

Isn't this how the Warp-Lightning Cannon worked in the old book? Expaning this to all war machines would foolish, methinks.

Riides Nids wrote:This is true, but at least for high elves, if you take much more than the just the baseline mandatory (or maybe just a bit more than mandatory) core requirements, you are severely handicapped. For 40k, the basic rank-and-file troop squads seem to be more effective... but then again I'm just starting fantasy, so take my thoughts on it with a grain of salt

Several armies would be up a creek: All varieties of Elves, Ogres, Brettonians... Dwarves wouldn't fare well in grabbing objectives, either.

Letting any Core hold, means that light Cav, and other Skirmishers could hold and that doesn't feel right. Particularly when you consider Elite Infantry Specials like Greatswords and Stormvermin -- considering their cost, these units should definitely be able to hold (or at least Contest) Objectives.

This is the same type of thinking that makes you ask why your 1st company Terminators or Long Fangs Devastators can't hold objectives. It doesn't make any sense of course, but it has the desired effect on armies. Let's be honest, the troops choices and core units are not the most killy units in the game. These days noone really cares at all what core units an army has. They're there because you've been forced to take them and they rarely achieve anything at all. Since I'm pretty sure GW won't all of a sudden make WS3 S3 T3 units with 4+ armour saves slaughter Bloodthirsters and Dragons and hordes of Flesh Hounds or regenerating Black Knights, how about making them important for the scenario objectives? It's either going to be the 'only core can hold objectives' or then a force organisation system that forces you to spend ~40% of your points in core units.

Objective based play has been used in plenty of massive tournaments already and it hasn't been the end of the world you're predicting. The other thing I'd like to see changed in all tournaments is the way tournament points are scored. I like it when a minor victory is worth the same amount of tournament points as a major victory. To be succesful in the usual pitched battles tournaments your army has to be able to massacre opponents. If you can't 'mop up' the few remaining units and heroes running for their lives and move a unit to each table quarter in the last turn, you're going to have a really hard time getting to the top. When you only need to focus on winning by a few victory points/kill points, or controlling only one more of the 4-6 objectives than the enemy, the game changes altogether. It becomes a lot more subtle and armies that might be totally outmatched on paper can still get a win by playing better than the opponent. The UK GT now has 2 missions out of 6 that are based solely on objectives and the other 4 are a combination of various objectives and victory points. A win is worth 30 points, a draw 10 points and a loss 1 points while you get 0 if you concede.

Anyway, I see this aspect of Warhammer being the one that will see the most rule book changes. Of course I might be wrong, but since that and army composition are the parts that are most disliked and altered by tournament organisers and hobbyists, GW will probably do something.

I really like the sound of this! Now if they only bring in entrenchment as an option for dwarf warmachines...

Does that mean that if the crew flee the warmachine cannot be recrewed?

Haven't half the rules been ruined or lost? If not, you lied to me Dakka, lied!

I'm liking the sound of this. I dropped fantasy because of the new edition rules (both BRB and army books) and I would love to see something change, hopefully for the better. The objective/killpoint thing has worked great for 40k so I don't see why it wouldn't work for fantasy. It'd save a lot of calculation at the end of the battle determining VP too!

Therion wrote:

Letting any Core hold, means that light Cav, and other Skirmishers could hold and that doesn't feel right. Particularly when you consider Elite Infantry Specials like Greatswords and Stormvermin -- considering their cost, these units should definitely be able to hold (or at least Contest) Objectives.

This is the same type of thinking that makes you ask why your 1st company Terminators or Long Fangs Devastators can't hold objectives. It doesn't make any sense of course, but it has the desired effect on armies.

Let's be honest, the troops choices and core units are not the most killy units in the game. These days noone really cares at all what core units an army has. They're there because you've been forced to take them and they rarely achieve anything at all.

It's either going to be the 'only core can hold objectives' or then a force organisation system that forces you to spend ~40% of your points in core units.

Objective based play has been used in plenty of massive tournaments already and it hasn't been the end of the world you're predicting.

I don't think that Objectives WFB would be bad, and I prefer objectives gaming, overall, but I think that 40k should be Objectives game, not WFB. That creates a useful (arbitary) distinction between the two games.

The "any Core" vs "Ranked (non-Missile) Infantry" is a important distinction. Armies take Core (because they are required to), but they rarely take block infantry, and when they do, it's HE Archers over Spears, or Crossbows / Handgunners / other missiles. Or Cav / Skirmishers over ordinary foot troops. The only really successful no-missile block infantry I've seen is in Daemons, and even then, it's because Horrors produce PD & DD. The next best blocks are Flagellants, because they're crazy good - good because the models are crazy. WFB should be about block infantry, and that should be encouraged first and foremost. Otherwise, all the rules about blocks might as well not be there, and we can play something else. So, force block play. It's what the game is supposed to be about, and don't allow the player to get around it.

If you also need to encourage Core (and you probably do, but to a lesser extent than the above), then allow any Core unit with starting size of US20+ to contest (but not capture) Objectives. This makes Core Cav and Skirmishers very useful in denying Objectives to the enemy, so they'll still be taken.

With a minimum requirement to capture / contest 4 quarters, then that's at least 4 core / brick units per army, each of decent size to do its job.

I'm also convinced that WHFB 8th Edition is highly likely for 2010 and I have been so for some time. It just makes sense based on the releases of the past couple years, especially the slightly shorter than previous revision cycle of 40K 5th Edition.

GW has become a well oiled machine at revising and releasing the products they feel will generate the biggest cash spkes and long-term continuous sales. I already sold my Fantasy hardback rule book on eBay earlier this year.

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?

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you also need to encourage Core (and you probably do, but to a lesser extent than the above), then allow any Core unit with starting size of US20+ to contest (but not capture) Objectives. This makes Core Cav and Skirmishers very useful in denying Objectives to the enemy, so they'll still be taken.

With a minimum requirement to capture / contest 4 quarters, then that's at least 4 core / brick units per army, each of decent size to do its job.

That's a bad idea. Not all armies can reasonably meet that requirement. Elven armies can't win with their Core units, most Chaos (all types) units are too expensive to field in blocks that size, you would need 7+ models for Ogre Kingdoms... Basing it on starting US seems kinda silly, anyhow: "Hey, there WERE 19 other guys that started this battle with me, but I'm the guy with the flag so I'm just gonna hide over here and do something maybe useful..."

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.

Mattbranb wrote:1. Spell lores redone to bring them inline with codex spells. Seriously, who takes Lore of Life?

A move back to the old lore, perhaps? I know the old LoL had some issues, but as you said LoL now is an oxymoron.

2. Miscast table simplified (possibly nastier).

Please no. My Orcs already went from the only ones who could die on a Miscast to dying 1/6 the time they miscast. A nastier table would probably lead to something for Orcs like "Roll a D6: On a 2-3 you die. On a 4 you lose the spell and take a wound. On a 5 you lose the spell. On a six it goes off irresistibly and roll again, re-rolling further 6's. On a 1 you die and all Orc units take D6 casualties."

3. Spears/Halberd bonuses against cavalry (makes sense doesn't it?).

And that's why we'll never see it.

4. Fixing challenge rules

Clarify, but if what I think you mean then yeah.

5. Eliminating partials

The Age of the Bolt Thrower is gone, the Age of the Stone Thrower is now?

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.

Doesn't sound right to me, as it'd make some armies extremely difficult to play (High Elves, for instance).

1. The biggest disparity I see with the magic lores is that the codex specific ones are much, more powerful than the regular ones. Casting values, spell descriptions, etc. etc. could be tightened up and brought into line with the other ones. I'm still mad they never came out with a Slann lore (which could have been pretty spectacular and fluffy). At least every lore has 1-2 bad spells in it, which could be rewritten/revisted.

2. At least I just have a Lvl1 Shaman in my orcs so I don't worry too much. Adjusting the miscast table would tie in more with the above comments - if you make the magic phase more efficient and actually can do something (Taking a Lvl 4 with standard lores now is almost not worth it), make the miscast table more dangerous. The Orcs table is a perfect example - when you cast with them, you have a real chance of bad things happening if you miscast.

3. Yeah GW and common sense.

4. What irks me about the challenge rule is that noone else can affect challenges, even if their another unit in BSB. Perfect example with the Popemobile. Tie it up in the front, then flank it with Str 7 Dragon Ogres. Whoops, sorry - you can't hit the model becuase it challenged that maurader guy up front. As well with that example, I still think the models should have to be in BSB, not in the front rank of a combat at opposite ends.

5. Partials just seem to slow everything down - yes I know it favors stone throwers, but if your going to do it with the whole Skaven book, might as well game. You still have a pretty good chance to scatter, making it a heck of alot more inaccurate than a boltthrower.

6. The points value argument ties into the "minimum" core choice armies that seem to be popping up everywhere now. Ties more into preventing the current powergaming trend of demons, dark elves, etc. etc.

One additional part that I think could be reworked - magic defense. Is it me now or does it seem like you go all or nothing into magic defense nowadays, with a Lvl 4 and a couple mages, or a Lvl 1 or so with scrolls. A suggestion one of the guys at our store mentioned was limiting casters to casting only as many spells as they have levels. Doesn't really have a huge impact on the game, although it will tone down some of the spam casters (mostly VC lords and Slann).

Mattbranb wrote:
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.

They actually used to do this in the days of Herohammer. It was something like 25% had to spent on troops, no more than 50% could be spent on characters and no more than 25% on war machines.

I don't see them going back to it.

I agree with Mr. Flashman here, remember to look at newly released army books and this sort of change isn't in there.

Yeah, but how hard would it be to require # Special > # Rare, and # Core > # Special?

At least you wouldn't have 4 Special, 2 Rare 3 Core - you'd require 5 Core.

Far far too limiting.

Remember, the vast majority of Fantasy games are played without anything overtly beardy turning up. Only in the microcosm of Tournament play does this become a problem, as people feel had they not come up against Beardy McCheese and his Daemons, they might have performed better. On the casual scene, you can just not play him again.

The current organisation works pretty well. Most armies don't function too well without a decent core selection!

How so? It doesn't sound like the Casual players would be hurt at all.

And it does drive home the point about Core vs Rare

Because then you are buggered for taking theme lists for the most part.

Example would be a non-Skrolk (on account he is flipping expensive and can't have a Plague Furnace) Pestelins force.

You need a Plague Priest (Hero), a Plague Furnace (Mount Option) and a unit of Plague Monks (Special) to get this off the ground.

Pestilens have no core choices, so if I wished to have more than one unit of Plague Monks, plus some Plague Censers (also Special) to back them up, I couldn't, as I'd need a large number of Clanrats/Slaves, non of which are exactly Pestilens. Plus I might want a couple of Plague Claw catapults.

But now back on topic fully.

Another possible pointer from the Skaven book, challenges.

Verminous Valour, and the Screaming Bell both have currently odd references to Challenges, in so far that it mentions when the character refuses a challenge.

Currently, individual characters don't refuse challenges, nor are individual characters challenged. You nominate the challenging character, and the enemy unit is the target. Opponent can then choose who accepts, whereas it's the unit that refuses, with the challenging player choosing who nicks off up the back.

So perhaps we are going back to the (infinitely more satisfying to my mind) method of issuing specific challenges. Clears up one of my problems with the game (in so far that you can have your unit leader, and not your general answer the challenge, with absolutely no drawback. Hardly fitting for an act of such craven cowardice!)

Or the Skaven army book is confusingly written... which it is.

YEt to play a game with it, but it seems pretty decent to me!

I dunno, there is the whole issue of slave conga lines (slaves arranged in a single file of 20 ranks in order to score D3+20 hits when they flee) and Warp Lightning on the Doomwheel isn't overly clear. I read it as only one hit scored per generator which then does multiple wounds to the poor sod who got hit, but that being the case, why does it really matter if the odd bolt hits your troops? (proper Skaven general I am)

Anyway, slightly off topic there. Apologies!

Please no objectives and please no 20+ US to get it. Means that expensive armies have to spend a disproportionate amount of points to get a single unit that can hold one.

Cant do the whole % points thing, or anything to do with core>special>rare thing unless you want to alter the HE book. Taking 4 specials and 5 core to get 2 RBTs and an Eagle is a little excessive (as well as our 5 core are quite bad)

Also gives huge advantage to unit that have better core. If you don't believe me then obviously you have never played as necrons in a 40k game

As someone who hated some of the changes in 7th (like nerfing light infantry tactics by march-blocking skirmishers), I find the failure of the previous "rebalancing" to favor block infantry as a sign that perhaps block infantry just can't cut it in a high-fantasy setting.

I mean, with super-elite models that are more than twice the effectiveness of a normal human footsoldier- not to mention magic and war machines that equal modern artillery- block tactics just don't make sense. The only thing that could really bring them in line is bigger bonuses for blocks (like frontage bonuses in addition to depth) or a reality-like nerfage of the uberunits. The latter option drains flavor, so I'm guessing that blocks will get further bonuses. That's okay in my book, as it just makes things more epic (although even more unbalanced, potentially).

Also, there's the question of application of the rules- scenarios. Perhaps some incentive to play the other scenarios would be better than making the essential scenario- the pitched battle- into an unrealistically modern objective-grab. Massed warfare was about mauling the other army more than capturing anything, usually. Doing more decisive damage was the whole reason to resort to concentrated forces over guerrilla tactics.

Maybe the pitched battle is favored because the others are just too unwieldy. Making PBs more unwieldy and streamlining some of the others could help. Also, tourneys really could do more to offer more variety in scenarios, and thus more flexible builds.

Lastly- any new edition or rules mod is going to screw some army. Saying that a change won't be made because it screws, say, High Elves- that's poor logic. As a former Beastmen/Skink Southlands/DE skirmish player, I can say that from bitter experience.

And dear sweet Jeebus, I hope someone other than Alessio gets to do the rewrite. That cheesy git favors his own favorite builds every time he touches a rulebook.

I can still hope they won't screw the HE can't I

On the other hand, you could screw them over, and since their book is somewhat old (what 5 or sixth oldest) give them a new one within a year or two of 8th edition bringing them back up to speed.

I reckon we'll see a definitive tidy up for Always Strikes First.

When the current book was done, it was a rarity. Yeah, not so much these days. We now have problems with for example, Swordmasters being charged by non-GW wielding, ASF troops, and still going first thanks to high I value.

What I would favour is rather than tinker with ASF, simply go slightly 40k, with chargers counting as I10 for the first round, and GW's counting as I0 when not charging/in subsequent rounds. Tidies it up nicely, and predictavely tackles other problems that could arise.

I really hope March Blocked skirmishers stays. Skirmishers have gotten very filthy these days, and speaking as a player of armies with limited Skirmisher availability (Dark Elves have Shades, and nowt else, Skaven have Globadiers, Gutter Runners and Censer Bearers, OnG have, erm, none that I can think of) the game gets really fricking lame when Skirmishers armed with ranged weapons just constantly dance around you. You can never bring them to combat, and you slowly lose to attrition. It's an interesting tactical challenge once in a while, but when it happens on a regular basis it's exeedingly tedious (yes, I'm looking at you Wood Elves..grrr.)

Scenarios wise, I reckon examples with different setups (like the use of the Farm during the battle of Waterloo) ought to suffice.

Hmm if i would like anything to happen with ASF it would be that it follows normal rules if both units have ASF, so charging units go first, GW last in subsequent rounds, I in subsequent rounds. But that may just be me.

Right because high elf rank and file troops are the real problems in WFB atm and ASF needs fixing! Not the big characters or monsters or leadership screwing or billion power dice magic that is dominating everything

The whole HE book was based on ASF if they change it so its "Not always strike first" you may as well add "High elves lose the game if they are charged" as a rule

Oh shush.

Clearing up a very broad rule which is now fairly widespread makes sense.

I think the point here is it might not be that simple, and broad changes that aren't well thought out to rules that weren't well thought out may lead to even bigger problems.

So a standard edition change, then, Alpharius?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I reckon we'll see a definitive tidy up for Always Strikes First.

You mean they haven't fixed that yet? ASF was a mess back in 4th and 5th edition when I used to play

They have and they haven't.

ASF v ASF goes straight to an Initiative thing. Whoever is highest, goes first, but always after Impact Hits.

Now whilst this is valid, and works pretty well, I personally find it a little daft that even charging, ASF v ASF with a GW, STILL goes to straight Initiative. The rule itself is valid, I just think it could be tweaked to mean ASF v ASF cancels itself out, and things are resolved normally, which is just as valid and straight forward.

That sounds like the fix I used back in the day. e.g. charging + ASW weapon (ASFx2) trumps ASF weapon (ASFx1) alone. It sounds to me like they haven't fixed it. Your spectacle colour may vary.

Like I said, the way it works now is nice and simple, and leaves no room for 'interpretation'

It's just I personally would prefer another method. Horses for Courses!

Main problem of course (Which I neatly failed to mention) would be the two editions of the High Elf FAQ, one saying Great Weapons still strike last in ASF V ASF, and the other (most recent and current) saying just stick to I v I, regardless of who did what and what with.

Kirasu wrote:Right because high elf rank and file troops are the real problems in WFB atm and ASF needs fixing! Not the big characters or monsters or leadership screwing or billion power dice magic that is dominating everything

The whole HE book was based on ASF if they change it so its "Not always strike first" you may as well add "High elves lose the game if they are charged" as a rule

I think you misunderstood what i was saying, ASF always strikes first, if the charging unit also has ASF then the effects of ASF are cancelled between the two units and normal rules apply for determining who strikes first. If there is multiple units charging a unit with ASF and at least one unit does not have ASF then that/those units must strike after all ASF units have attacked.

So ASF is still the same except when charged by another ASF, still goes after impact hits and before anyone else. It gives the game more tactics when you play HE vs HE (as i have a few times with real rules and a few times with house rules, house rules are so much better and more tactically enjoyable) and decreases the domination of some units over others.

Alpharius wrote:I think the point here is it might not be that simple, and broad changes that aren't well thought out to rules that weren't well thought out may lead to even bigger problems.

Well, this is GW, so I don't think we need to wonder over that possibility.

cool lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ima hungry little ripper lol

I'd like to share my perspective on a couple of rumors...

My perspective comes from a former warhammer player and current very active 40k player. When Warhammer was transitioning to its current edition I was very unhappy with the game. Not the models, not the lore, just the game mechanics. I was pleased with 40k's transition into 4th edition, but it wasn't a great game yet. When I saw that fantasy had basically not improved on any of the facets of the game play that I found monotonous, and unfun, I dumped it. When 5th edition 40k hit I fell in love. While still not a perfect game, the leaps and bounds of improvement made keep me totally fired up about it to this day.

I hesitate to even mention the comparison between game systems. I do not want to start any sort of argument here. I am primed and ready to get back into fantasy if the steps i feel need to be taken happen. Some of the rumors about these steps have surfaced, and a bunch of people are poo-pooing them without realizing their positive impact.

First of these is some sort of 'scoring' status for core units. It isn't an overstatement that scoring troops in 40k was one of a short list of major changes that saved the game. Troops and core units never hit as hard as any of the other force organizations slots. They were always a begrudgingly accepted requirement. Shrewd players took what they had to and dumped the rest. There was never any positive reinforcement for decisions made to invest in more than you had to.

Now i don't think a system for objective locations on a fantasy table is necessarily the way to go. But incentivising the survival of core units in fantasy could make for a serious consideration of the humble block unit. Sure plenty of army books have core cavalry elements, but even those books would more likely consider a cheap, large block if it meant that its survival could win the game. Fast cav, chariots, war machines and monsters would obviously still have a place, considering their damage potential, but the new challenge of balancing a solid core, and protecting it would make for a new paradigm in list design.

Ultimately, as a consumer, a positive factor in taking core units, and especially blocks, would go along way to drawing me back into fantasy, right behind me would be around $500 of army investment.

The other factor of fantasy that drove me away was the Dominate, Dabble, Defend paradigm of magic. When selecting characters, the only sane choice was to either plan to dominate the entire magic phase, gathering double digits of power dice, and thusly, the free dispel dice that came with doing so. Or to take a scroll caddy. the useless, unfun model we all loved to hate. the dabblers were always shut down by both the dominators and the defenders, and therefore wasted points trying to slip spells off.

Any changes to the magic phase that i catch wind of, i listen eagerly. Limiting the expenditure of dispel dice based on power level of defending wizards would be one step towards dabblers having a chance. That would be another big step in getting me and my money back.

All fantasy players are acutely aware of the maximizing attacker/free wheel/clipping mess, and i'm pretty confident that'll be cleaned up. Some form of kill points to counteract the drive towards MSU, can speed up games, and balance bigger, bockier armies with the speedsters (this would have to be handled well... not saying that is an easy fix, or without growing pains)

lastly, the wacky events in fantasy that are not specific to the orcs and goblins book were something I wasn't fond of. Warmachine misfire tables, miscast tables and wild cannon bounces being the obvious culprits. I hope they keep the unfortunate, sometimes game shattering event strings (3 cannons blowing themselves up, a miscast killing a wizard lord and shutting down a crucial magic phase) to a minimum, they don't add 'flavor' or 'excitement' to me and many of my gaming group. They add gnashing of teeth, and frustration to the victim, and sadness, survivor guilt and pity to the benfactor. I hope for many of those rules to have their bonuses and penalties drawn closer to center.

Ok, thats about it. Hopefully, I won't get flamed too hard for sharing my admittedly outsider views of your game. My overlying message here is to not be afraid of any army building paradigms that drastically change, and likewise with any new battle 'objectives' (whatever they may be) They could very well save your game.

@Shep: I think you had a good summary there.

IMO, WFB could refocus on Core with modified KPs:

1 KP per Core UNIT
2 KP per Special UNIT
3 KP per Rare UNIT

+1 KP per Hero
+3 KP per Lord

x2 if generating PD.
x2 if General

Moving to KP like this instead of VPs dramatically changes how you look at units, and especially Core vs non-Core.


Then, it's the issue of standard-bearing ranked infantry sucking. These guys should be the objectives / quarter holders, and would actually be worth something.

But then, I'm no WFB designer, so oh, well...

Shep wrote:
Ultimately, as a consumer, a positive factor in taking core units, and especially blocks, would go along way to drawing me back into fantasy, right behind me would be around $500 of army investment.

And like an evil pied piper there would likely be at least 3 or 4 of us other sprue posse guys who would take the plunge (or pull armies out of cold storage).

It should be obvious that I agree with most of your points as these points of contention have been oft discussed around the table.

I kind of agre about the Magic thing. However, if someone does go all out on Magic, in the vast majority of cases their army will lack the muscle combat characters bring to the table, and they will be punished heavily in the ensuing combats.

I think the biggest problem is the Dispel Scroll. I don't like the 'auto-stop' it represents. Why not change them to be akin to Power Stones, and instead grant bonus Dispel Dice?

Oddly, the Miscast/fire stuff of Fantasy is what I enjoy. It means you can have pretty filthy stuff on the field, with the risk of it blowing itself up at the most inopportune time. Take the Empire Artillery. For what it does, it is dirt, dirt cheap. Great Cannon can take a Dragon's head clean off in a single shot. Mortars and Helstorms can obliterate entire units of troops. The Misfire and general lack of real accuracy is their balancing factor. And although I don't like resorting to it, it's quite realistic. When packing the Powder down the barrel, even a small smoulder on the ram will see the loader losing his hands (see Perry Brothers) and the casting of old time cannons wasn't exactly precise.

Personally, I really don't feel Fantasy needs a great deal of work doing. A new Edition is a good opportunity to clear up confusions brought in with Army Books, tone things down (for example, Magic Weapons could be allowed to treat Ward Saves as mundane Saves, meaning Daemons are shaved a bit)

Killpoints I don't think are a great idea for Fantasy. For instance, in my Skaven army, I have an 840 point combination unit which is going to be very difficult to destroy, namely Grey Seer on a Bell, surrounded by 38 Stormvermin bearing the Battle Banner, with a Chieftain carrying the Standard Of Clan Superiority. Unbreakable, Ld 10 and even when Ranks are negated, brings between +5 and +7 combat resolution. All for 4 kill points. This unit will go through pretty much anything in the game like a hot knife through the proverbial. It will do naughty things, and it's cost reflects this. VP's far better reflect the effort of taking this monstrosity down!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I kind of agre about the Magic thing. However, if someone does go all out on Magic, in the vast majority of cases their army will lack the muscle combat characters bring to the table, and they will be punished heavily in the ensuing combats.

Yeah, its not really about overall balance. its about me wanting to take a single level two wizard sometimes. You can take a single librarian in 40k, with never worse than a 50/50 chance per psychic power of losing the power. If I had to take two librarians in order to get one power off. I'd just take none. that takes choice out of the game. your thoughts on the dispel scroll are mirrored by me and mine.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Oddly, the Miscast/fire stuff of Fantasy is what I enjoy. It means you can have pretty filthy stuff on the field, with the risk of it blowing itself up at the most inopportune time. Take the Empire Artillery. For what it does, it is dirt, dirt cheap. Great Cannon can take a Dragon's head clean off in a single shot. Mortars and Helstorms can obliterate entire units of troops. The Misfire and general lack of real accuracy is their balancing factor. And although I don't like resorting to it, it's quite realistic. When packing the Powder down the barrel, even a small smoulder on the ram will see the loader losing his hands (see Perry Brothers) and the casting of old time cannons wasn't exactly precise.

the added swinginess is what creates dangerous game imbalance. I never got to take my empire griffon, a model I truly adored, because there was every likelihood of said decapitation. On those same lines, when i took that griffon just for laughs, and your cannnon farted for 2 turns, I get to land a terror causing unit, break half of your army, flank charge whoever survived, and swing the game. Certain 'experimental' war machines should certainly have some consequences. But most 'realities' about war machines don't need to be incorporated into game rules. If you miss all game with a cannon, you can imagine it cracked its barrel on the first shot.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Killpoints I don't think are a great idea for Fantasy. For instance, in my Skaven army, I have an 840 point combination unit which is going to be very difficult to destroy, namely Grey Seer on a Bell, surrounded by 38 Stormvermin bearing the Battle Banner, with a Chieftain carrying the Standard Of Clan Superiority. Unbreakable, Ld 10 and even when Ranks are negated, brings between +5 and +7 combat resolution. All for 4 kill points. This unit will go through pretty much anything in the game like a hot knife through the proverbial. It will do naughty things, and it's cost reflects this. VP's far better reflect the effort of taking this monstrosity down!

This is the kind of thing that I, as an outsider, can't comment on. The game designers might have a plan for your big death star, but I don't


I apologize for taking this news thread an kinda turning it into a discussion thread. I just meant to hit on that first rumor you guys mentioned about scoring core, and it turned into a kind of manifesto. Anything else rumorish, confirmed or confirmed on 8th? Specifically details on how GW plans to buff the 8 lores of magic against the book specific lores?

Deathstar units all have the same achilles heel. In order to become Deathstars, I'm taking power from the rest of my line up.

Filthy as they are, they are the natural prey of most Artillery, which can ruin my day pretty quickly! Indeed, my Bell Pushers live in squeaky, mortal fear of meeting an Empire player who has discovered the joys of the Helstorm Rocket Battery. Or indeed a rival Skaven Engineer who saw fit to (quite rightly) select a Deathrocker (4D6" range, explodes at the end with a Large Template, S5. OUCH!).

But hey, this is a discussion thead. Started out as rumours, and has grown into somewhere to discuss hoped for changes etc.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think the biggest problem is the Dispel Scroll. I don't like the 'auto-stop' it represents. Why not change them to be akin to Power Stones, and instead grant bonus Dispel Dice?

Killpoints I don't think are a great idea for Fantasy. For instance, in my Skaven army, I have an 840 point combination unit which is going to be very difficult to destroy, namely Grey Seer on a Bell, surrounded by 38 Stormvermin bearing the Battle Banner, with a Chieftain carrying the Standard Of Clan Superiority. Unbreakable, Ld 10 and even when Ranks are negated, brings between +5 and +7 combat resolution. All for 4 kill points. This unit will go through pretty much anything in the game like a hot knife through the proverbial. It will do naughty things, and it's cost reflects this. VP's far better reflect the effort of taking this monstrosity down!

I'm pretty sure GW had considered the Dispel Scroll as a DD generator/modifier, and rejected it in favor of the auto-stop. If GW moved in this direction, I think it would only further ratchet games towards Magichammer.

In your example, with my modified KPs above, that would be:
12KP for 3 KP Lord x2 for PD x2 General
1 KP for Hero
2 KP for Stormvermin
= 15 KP

15 KP is a lot closer to it's actual value compared to the same points spent on units of Core Clanrats.

____

Shep wrote:The game designers might have a plan for your big death star, but I don't

Anything else rumorish, confirmed or confirmed on 8th?

One assumes the WFB designers are well aware of the issues with Death Stars, MagicHammer, Core, and blocks, and will do something about them.

GW hasn't released anything concrete, aside from confirming that 2010 will see 8th coming out. And we probably won't see it for another several months until we get within the 2-month marketing window.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
One assumes the WFB designers are well aware of the issues with Death Stars, MagicHammer, Core, and blocks,

Okay, maybe...

and will do something about them.

...but probably not the second part. Balance will be attempted, but if it's Alessio behind the (Doom)wheel, you're not going to see changes integrated well. It'll be patches on the status quo, not a major rework of any quality. Oh, and I'm usually not cavalier with accusations of favoritism by designers, but Alessio's demonstrated that he will favor the things he likes in his own lists (herohammer, cavalry, cheese) when he reworks the system. Stuff he doesn't like (realistic light infantry tactics, which got screwed by marchblocking skirmishers) he nerfs hammily and with poor consideration of balance. With no good interface, you end up with a system where authentic ancient tactics (blocks) are mutually exclusive from flavorful high-fantasy stuff (magical "artillery", heroes, and monsters, which skew things towards modern skirmish warfare). Ancient warfare just didn't have to deal with crazy force-multipliers like magical snipers or single troops that can take on whole units. Until someone figures out that conundrum (hopefully by making blocks stronger, not by hitting cool fantasy elements with Jervis's boring-stick, JohnHwangDD) the game will be awkward.

It would be nice to be pleasantly surprised. For now I (and probably many other defectors to 40K from WHFB) will hold off on returning to WHFB until a new system gets a thumbs-up review from the rest of you guys.

Careful with the Skirmishers thing. Before they could be marched blocked, they were a real pain when taken enmasse, as they danced around ranked blocks, and prevented my army from doing it's thing, and even when you did corner a unit of them, the points to effort payoff was miserably low.

I still don't see the big problem with Cavalry, as either I simply haven't run into it, or I've always been able to deal with it. Take your pic of the two, as I'm not about to blow my own trumpet.

PEople do complain about the power of Dragons and Lords. Well, when taken in combination in a 2,000 point game, that's typically over a quarter of my army in a single model very prone to botched attack rolls. You better believe it should be hard as nails.

But before commenting on my post, please do remember that I am not a Tournament Player, thus my experience is likely to be different from someone who regularly plays in them.

If Fantasy moves to Kill Points and Core only scoring, I won't be playing any more and GW will lose all the money I spend on mini's. *shrugs* I quit 40k when it went to that direction.

At least I would have money to spend on other things then.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Deathstar units all have the same achilles heel. In order to become Deathstars, I'm taking power from the rest of my line up.

Filthy as they are, they are the natural prey of most Artillery, which can ruin my day pretty quickly! Indeed, my Bell Pushers live in squeaky, mortal fear of meeting an Empire player who has discovered the joys of the Helstorm Rocket Battery. Or indeed a rival Skaven Engineer who saw fit to (quite rightly) select a Deathrocker (4D6" range, explodes at the end with a Large Template, S5. OUCH!).

But hey, this is a discussion thead. Started out as rumours, and has grown into somewhere to discuss hoped for changes etc.

Or a tzeench sorcerer gets lucky and the entire unit goes poof

Indeed. Or your Skaven opponent casts plague, and swiftly kills 2/3rds of your Stormvermin, as happened tonight

*runs off to sob quietly in the corner*

P.S. Plague Furnace is ROCKhard!

As long as they don´t touch my Tomb Kings Magic I´m cool with most changes. I started hating the rigidity of the hieratic order but now I love TKs being different.

M.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Careful with the Skirmishers thing. Before they could be marched blocked, they were a real pain when taken enmasse, as they danced around ranked blocks, and prevented my army from doing it's thing, and even when you did corner a unit of them, the points to effort payoff was miserably low.

That's exactly the sort of annoyance skirmish infantry should cause though. Reference:

Battle of Lechaeum

wiki wrote:To stop this, the Spartan commander ordered some of his men to charge the Athenians, but the peltasts fell back, easily outrunning the hoplites, and then, when the Spartans turned to return to the regiment, the peltasts fell upon them, flinging spears at them as they fled, and inflicted casualties. This process was repeated several times, with similar results. Even when a group of Spartan cavalrymen arrived, the Spartan commander made the curious decision that they should keep pace with the hoplites in pursuit, instead of racing ahead to ride down the fleeing peltasts. Unable to drive off the peltasts, and suffering losses all the while, the Spartans were driven back to a hilltop overlooking Lechaeum.

Battle of Sphacteria

wiki wrote:The Spartans, under their commander Epitadas, attempted to come to grips with the Athenian hoplites and push their enemies back into the sea, but Demosthenes detailed his lightly armed troops, in companies of about 200 men, to occupy high points and harass the enemy with missile fire whenever they approached. When the Spartans rushed at their tormentors, the light troops, unencumbered by heavy hoplite armor, were easily able to run to safety; dust and ash from the recent fire, stirred up by the commotion, further contributed to the Spartans' predicament by obscuring their attackers from their sight. Unable to make any headway, the Spartans withdrew in some confusion to the northern end of the island, where they dug in behind their fortifications and hoped to hold out.

I agree with many of your other points though. The problem is balancing ancient-styled massed battles with high-fantasy force multipliers. Instead of using Roman/Greek warfare as a guideline, maybe we should be looking more carefully at Renaissance wars like the 30 Years War, which seemed to feature a mix of infantry, cavalry, firearms, and artillery and perhaps more closely models the wacky stuff in WHFB?

Without meaning to be rude, if you are after detailed and realistic unit interactions, WHFB isn't the right game for you.

WHFB is in deed about the wacky stuff. Had a whale of a time today unleashing two Hellpit Abominations in the really big game. Horrendous amounts of damage done with one of them (chewed up and spat out 10 Phoenix Guard, 10 Swordmasters, 20 Highelf Spears, 10 High Elf Archers, plus a unit of Stunties). It's a Fantasy game, and is indeed about the Fantastical.

As I said, Skirmishers become a pain in the arse when taken enmasse, ala Wood Elves and previous book Lizardmen, as they can dish out outrageous amounts of damage for relatively little risk. One or two small units is fine and dandy!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Without meaning to be rude, if you are after detailed and realistic unit interactions, WHFB isn't the right game for you.

Detailed unit interactions? What does that even mean, and how did you conclude that it is what I'm after? I'm decently content with the current state of the WHFB core rules...

I was meaning about how Skirmishers work.