2776
Post by: Reecius
I apologize if this was brought up in the previous thread, but I didn't feel like slogging through the entire thing.
I was told at Adepticon by a very reliable source that in 8th ed Fantasy, Rank and File units will be able to go 10 wide, that combat will be fought to completion in one turn and that infantry will fight 2 deep, 3 with spears.
I hope this is true as it will make the game look cooler, and combat will be so much more effective. As it is, there is so much variability as 5 wide one rank deep, you throw so few dice. With 2 to 3 ranks and 10 wide, you start throwing dice like 40K which brings you closer to average and makes the game go back to blocks of infantry and away from the skirmish style game it is now.
And this I can't for the life of me remember if my contact told me or if someone in the conversation said it as something that they hoped would happen, but I will repeat it anyway with an extra pinch of salt. Calvary will cause impact hits on the charge.
So at any rate it sounds like the game will be having some major changes which it really needs. As it stands Fantasy is so out of whack with balance issues that I don't enjoy playing it that much. 40K is much more enjoyable to me now, although I have to admit I am more than a little worries about what Blood Angels are bringing to the table. We will see on that issue though, it is easy to think the sky is falling before we actually play a dex and see how good or bad it really is.
Anyway, there is some rumor stew for everyone on this fine, Friday morning.
772
Post by: spacewolflord
My friends and I have never had balance issues with the game it self. It always comes down to list constrution and tatics. I am personal leary of all the new changes that have been talked about.
2776
Post by: Reecius
Perhaps it seems out of balance to me because of my lack of experience and my army.
It seems to be the general consensus though, that Fantasy has a very strongly tiered system, meaning some armies are just powerhouses while others struggle.
If the tournament at Adepticon was anything to go by, I strongly agree with that. Daemons, VC, Fark Elves, and Lizzies pretty much dominate.
I could be wrong, but I know as a Wood Elf player, if I see Daemons across from me, it will take a miracle to pull off victory. Any other army I do fine with.
But again, I don't play Fantasy as much, and my knowledge of the game is limited so it could just be my lack of experience.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Can they not go ten wide now? Or are you saying they must be at least ten wide?
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
I heard must be 10 wide to get a rank bonus. The person I heard it from could have misunderstood though so again, pinch of salt.
2776
Post by: Reecius
Yes they can! Haha, that shows my lack of experience right there.
I assume it means they must go 10 wide as everyone in attendance acted fairly shocked. I am used to seeing infantry blocks 5 wide.
Sorry about that, I play Wood Elves, nothing I use ranks up.
But that is what I was told, so it may be open to interpretation in this case.
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
GW must have decided that they need to sell more Fantasy miniatures. I mean, for a standard WHFB troops box of 16 models, that generally gives you a decent block with +2 combat resolution. 10 wide? Man, you couldn't even make a second rank with a single box of models. That's ridiculous to me.
514
Post by: Orlanth
10 wide for a rank bonus. I dont beleive that, but I do believe you read about it yesterday, on the 1st.
10 wide would be a 'good idea' for GW as it meant more models being sold but it means 40 models for a full unit, from this GW can increase game size and sell larger armies.
However:
1. Unless GW started to box up infantry in units of forty and only marginally increased the price it would put off a lot of gamers.
2. The effort to paint a single unit would be too much for many gamers. GW sells units in painting batches, always did. A unit of ten cavalry or twenty infantry is good for a sitting, You could get all the boots done or all the faces etc at once. Forty is too much.
3. Combats resolved in a single turn gets rid of tarpits and tarpits are valid tactics. The classic hold up the slayers with the zombies will no longer work.
Perhaps Jervis was enough of a moron to actually think is a good idea, that I can believe. But someone in GW studio ought to be level headed enough to see this for the colossally bad idea it is.
6300
Post by: Korthu
A GW store Manager told me he was told from his higher ups to grear up his fantasy terrain for a Summer 8th ed fantasy release. He was told that the magic system is getting an overhaul. No details, but he was nervous since he plays VC. I for one am happy to see some changes since I love WFB but have found it less fun to play in 7th ed. I really hope to see big blocks of infantry to make a come back and I hope that chariots get the ability to march, but thats just me. Impack hits for cav would be great but we'll see.
-Korthu
666
Post by: Necros
10 wide is just too much. honestly, I think for just about any army a 5x5 block is perfect. works good and looks good. Personally I feel the rank bonus should be 5 wide for man sized bases, 4 wide for chaos sized, 3 wide for ogre sized. If you want your army to look like you have thin rows of troops going straight across the battlefield, you still can also.
2889
Post by: Jin
And here I actually liked the fact that you didn't have to roll a bucket of dice every time you needed to do something in WFB...
12477
Post by: bootlegbaker
Wow, that makes my units of ghouls much better! 2 ranks of ghouls with a ghast, thats 21 attacks praying for poisons!
24898
Post by: c34r34lk1ll3r
I like to run my orcs in 6x3 blocks. or 5x3. I can't wait for a new O&G Army book. we really need one.
26926
Post by: Xyz'r'Xaz'r'Xuz
I can see the magic stystem getting a bit of a tweak but the 10 frontage idea seems to be a bit of a stretch for me.
I played a LOT of Warhammer Ancients back in the day (still the same basic combat mechanics as WHFB) and fighting the immensely wide Ancient German warbands made for a clumsy round or three of combats. (Fortunately the wide-frontage was unique to only one or two types of armies).
4-6 frontage seems to be golden for most gameplay. 
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
10 wide just wouldn't fit on a standard 6 x 4 table with armies like O&G, Skaven, or hell even Empire.
I do think that they are going to give infantry blocks serious bonuses, but this sounds more like a hindrance than anything else.
26926
Post by: Xyz'r'Xaz'r'Xuz
Bye-the-bye...does anyone have an idea when "this summer" 8th edition is supposed to drop? 
306
Post by: Boss Salvage
Xyz'r'Xaz'r'Xuz wrote:Bye-the-bye...does anyone have an idea when "this summer" 8th edition is supposed to drop?
When is Games Day US? My guess is then.
- Salvage
26926
Post by: Xyz'r'Xaz'r'Xuz
Looks like the US GW Gamesday is August 21st for this year.
Could be interesting... 
8272
Post by: FlammingGaunt
I think 10 man wide is a too much. Though i'd like to see magic buffed a tad.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I can't see the 'combats done in 1 turn' thing as being true.
It just doesn't make any sense at all to go that route...
9892
Post by: Flashman
Alpharius wrote:I can't see the 'combats done in 1 turn' thing as being true.
It just doesn't make any sense at all to go that route...
Unless they simplified combat in some way, but yes, most of this doesn't seem right to be honest. Cavalry impact hits though make perfect sense. Been arguing this for years 
2889
Post by: Jin
If they do give cavalry impact hits, how will they change chariots? As is, impact hits are the only advantage that chariots have over regular cavalry.
5344
Post by: Shep
You guys understand that the models aren't getting cheaper in points right?
Moving to ten wide just means that there will be half as many units on the table, not twice as many models...
9892
Post by: Flashman
Jin wrote:If they do give cavalry impact hits, how will they change chariots? As is, impact hits are the only advantage that chariots have over regular cavalry.
I dunno, but chariot impact hits will probably be higher strength.
The fact is if you get charged by cavalry, it's being run over by a load of horses that does most of the damage, not the blokes in the saddle (lances & spears aside).
2776
Post by: Reecius
Orlanth wrote:10 wide for a rank bonus. I dont beleive that, but I do believe you read about it yesterday, on the 1st.
You misread what I wrote, I was TOLD this at Adepticon by a friend who has always had reliable information, I didn't read it on April Fools Day.
But you are free to believe or disbelieve it at your discretion, just don't misread what I wrote as you may throw other people off with your opinions.
3537
Post by: wildger
I field Ogre Kingdom. Even a 4x6 table will not be enough for a 10 wide unit. If you feel that WHFB does not have a balance issue, take OK for a change.
2889
Post by: Jin
@Flashman - oh, I don't disagree with the change. I'd love to see that happen. Just wondering how they would adjust chariots. I can only imagine a S buff to the chariot impact hits or just more base impact hits.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Shep wrote:You guys understand that the models aren't getting cheaper in points right?
Moving to ten wide just means that there will be half as many units on the table, not twice as many models...
Remember when 40K went from 2nd edition to 3rd?
And the points for a Space Marine Tac Squad trooper was basically cut in half?
I can see GW doing something like this here as well, 'forcing' us to buy more troops.... 'for the good of the game' (and GW's bottom line!).
9594
Post by: RiTides
Reecius wrote:I could be wrong, but I know as a Wood Elf player, if I see Daemons across from me, it will take a miracle to pull off victory. Any other army I do fine with.
Yes, but as a wood elf player, aren't you worried about blocks of troops getting stronger, when we rely on hit-and-run tactics with skirmishing or light units, rather than on models fighting in blocks/ranks?
I know it worries me as a woodie... I'm just curious why you would think this would help balance the game out for the army that you (and I) play!
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Think about it for one minute. 10 wide - 25mm bases. 25 centimetre front. As an OK player who for fits and giggles ran a unit that got 2 rank bonuses that is the most unwieldy unit going that gets hit by combined rear/ flank charges each time. Ick.
But, imagine how many customers will suddenly find out that their army is playable under the new rules and have to run out and buy troops. Epic win right there. Just not for the customer.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
wildger wrote:I field Ogre Kingdom. Even a 4x6 table will not be enough for a 10 wide unit. If you feel that WHFB does not have a balance issue, take OK for a change.
Maybe 40mm bases will count as two models so their ranks 'only' have to be five models wide. Maybe rank bonuses will be tied to 'unit strength' (I think that's the name of the game mechanic). A rank must have a unit strength of 10 to count (typically 10 man sized models).
363
Post by: Red_Zeke
10 wide would be insanity. Almost impossible to get rank bonuses at that point, and all the advantage is to active combat resolution. Dwarf warriors, empire blocks, goblins, orcs don't even need to bother showing up. I normally hate hyperbole like that, but seriously, I'd need to drop 475 points on 40 dwarf warriors to get a full 3 extra ranks and full command. They can hardly win combat now as it is, to say nothing of fighting on a 10 wide frontage.
Too drastic a change for me to believe.
RZ
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Maybe we're missing a second part of the change that makes the ten-wide units reasonable. All the rumors are pointing towards making infantry more useful in combat.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
At least 10-wide units would look historically accurate.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
JohnHwangDD wrote:At least 10-wide units would look historically accurate.
Yes, the first thing I will think of when I see a unit of skaven or daemons 10 wide is "oh my, that looks historically accurate". Automatically Appended Next Post: Scottywan82 wrote:Maybe we're missing a second part of the change that makes the ten-wide units reasonable. All the rumors are pointing towards making infantry more useful in combat.
and also I think a substantial reduction in points for troops and a move away (once again) from the strength and power of individual characters. Otherwise it makes no sense to do so.
If this is the case, for all the moaning, I will like to see huge blocks of troops move around the table. Blocks of spearmen, skeletons would look great. Maybe it will only apply to certain troops types.
2776
Post by: Reecius
RiTides wrote:Reecius wrote:I could be wrong, but I know as a Wood Elf player, if I see Daemons across from me, it will take a miracle to pull off victory. Any other army I do fine with.
Yes, but as a wood elf player, aren't you worried about blocks of troops getting stronger, when we rely on hit-and-run tactics with skirmishing or light units, rather than on models fighting in blocks/ranks?
I know it worries me as a woodie... I'm just curious why you would think this would help balance the game out for the army that you (and I) play!
After the epic level arse kicking I got at the Adepticon Fantasy tournament I don't think I should be giving any advice!
Haha, I won my first game against Dwarves by a large margin, which put me into the Daemon category. I got obliterated then got to play Fateweaver plus 12 flamer Daemons and got obliterated again! Woodies just get the uber pwnage against Daemons, at least when I am playing them they do. I can beat any other army, but Daemons just destroy me with disgusting ease.
But enough of the rant.
If what I was told is correct, Blocks of Infantry will be 10 wide and fight 2 deep, so getting the charge will be HUGE. We don't know what other rules will be in place to supplement this (or even if it is true) but as a Woodie specifically, I think it means it will be easier to out maneuver the other guy as they will have less units that are bigger and harder to move. So Woodies should have an easier time of it, at least that is what I think knowing what we know now.
18072
Post by: TBD
Alpharius wrote:Shep wrote:You guys understand that the models aren't getting cheaper in points right?
Moving to ten wide just means that there will be half as many units on the table, not twice as many models...
Remember when 40K went from 2nd edition to 3rd?
And the points for a Space Marine Tac Squad trooper was basically cut in half?
I can see GW doing something like this here as well, 'forcing' us to buy more troops.... 'for the good of the game' (and GW's bottom line!).
So what would happen to all the point costs in the current army books, most of which will not be updated for a while? I don't think it is a realistic option for them to mess too much with individual point costs.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
40k had another troop cheapening revision going from fourth to fifth edition without rebooting the codices. Fantasy could do the same thing.
24209
Post by: IG88
spacewolflord wrote:My friends and I have never had balance issues with the game it self. It always comes down to list constrution and tatics. I am personal leary of all the new changes that have been talked about.
So you play Dark Elves, Skaven, Undead or deamons?
I personally hope the game changes completely.... its just terrible now, psychology is a joke with every other army being immune, shooting is underpowered with all the negatives for moving, over half, wearing a cotton shirt etc... just let stuff hit with its ballistic skill like 40k already..
Heavy cav sucks compared to what i should be, like a 3d impact hits each rider and line of sight has always been screwed up, nobody can turn their heads in that game.
Complete overhaul please or I'll continue to sell off my armies.
Oh yeah and for the poster, 10 wide and more infantry may sound cooler until you find out that your old army is now garbage and you need to by about 50 more troops per phalanx. GW never releases a new set of rules with out having an interest in making people buy stuff, good rules have always been an afterthought, 10 wide means more sales, you will never see 10 night goblins fighting 1 chaos warrior as you would in real life always rank to rank... with that system the true effect of outnumbering never comes into play.
I truly hope the game gets better as I like the theme...
2776
Post by: Reecius
I hear you, IG88. I just don't like playing Fantasy much right now because of the imbalance.
I play Woodies so the rank thing means nothing to me. I could see how it would be really annoying though to have to buy new movement trays and new models to make legal units.
I hope the game improves because right now I honestly don't like it even half as much as 40K.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Almost all wood elf armies are going to get destroyed by daemons, though, Reecius- it's nothing on you! Ward saves that don't work against magical attacks and all that...
Thanks for the insights, though! I've been worried about not having blocks if they are emphasized in the new rules, but I'm sure we'll get by like we always do (outmaneuver, multi-charge, etc...) 
6174
Post by: The Crippler
This is why I now stay away from the internet on April Fool's Day.
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
Almost all wood elf armies are going to get destroyed by daemons
One can only hope. 
21678
Post by: Karon
IG88 wrote:spacewolflord wrote:My friends and I have never had balance issues with the game it self. It always comes down to list constrution and tatics. I am personal leary of all the new changes that have been talked about.
So you play Dark Elves, Skaven, Undead or deamons?
I personally hope the game changes completely.... its just terrible now, psychology is a joke with every other army being immune, shooting is underpowered with all the negatives for moving, over half, wearing a cotton shirt etc... just let stuff hit with its ballistic skill like 40k already..
Heavy cav sucks compared to what i should be, like a 3d impact hits each rider and line of sight has always been screwed up, nobody can turn their heads in that game.
Complete overhaul please or I'll continue to sell off my armies.
Oh yeah and for the poster, 10 wide and more infantry may sound cooler until you find out that your old army is now garbage and you need to by about 50 more troops per phalanx. GW never releases a new set of rules with out having an interest in making people buy stuff, good rules have always been an afterthought, 10 wide means more sales, you will never see 10 night goblins fighting 1 chaos warrior as you would in real life always rank to rank... with that system the true effect of outnumbering never comes into play.
I truly hope the game gets better as I like the theme...
So you just want to simplify things? Many people play this game because its requires more thought than 40K, and its not as easy to play. If you want simplification, then go play 40k. 40K is generally Fantasy simplified.
-----
I cannot imagine the 10 wide for a rank bonus ever happening. That would be a nightmare for EVERY army. It would up the costs of armies, since you would have to buy more figures to have an effective unit.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Karon wrote:40K is generally Fantasy, but vastly improved in every way possible
FYP.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Karon wrote:
So you just want to simplify things? Many people play this game because its requires more thought than 40K, and its not as easy to play. If you want simplification, then go play 40k. 40K is generally Fantasy simplified.
I humbly disagree. 40k is probably 70% playing, 20% list, 10% luck. Fantasy is probably 30% playing, 60% list, 10% luck. Why?
1. Fantasy is about VP denial/gain. This can be gamed by list.
2. Certain builds are tremendously broke and there are some very unfavorable codex match ups.
I can normally walk up to a Fantasy table before the game, look at the armies and be pretty spot on with the outcome. In 40k, it is much harder to do that.
23512
Post by: bd1085
Adjust combat to enable more models to get into combat. Something like each ensuing round of combat enables certain ranks to make 1 attack.
Round 2 Combat - Rank 2 may fight
Round 3 Combat - Rank 3 may fight ...etc.
I'd just like Combat between block units to be nastier.
Tweak up Magic. Not sure how since this could dramatically hinder certain armies, namely VC. It does seem broke though since its a huge points sink to get a great magic defense while its easy to spam power dice.
Cavalry cause 1 impact per mount at base strength of mount, +1 strength if barded. Chariots still get D6, +1 scythed wheels, and maybe +1 per mount?
Shooting. Seems like rank and file missile troops get annihilated very easily without dishing it out. Maybe just tone down on the all the -1 "To Hit" modifiers. If anything let an additional rank of a missile unit fire INDIRECTLY at a target unit at an additional -1 to hit.
11558
Post by: Uriels_Flame
We've been told the latest updates/army books are compatible with 8th Edition - so Skaven and Beastmen should hold true if this is the case.
Look at their basic troop choice and see if this holds water.
2776
Post by: Reecius
@RitTides
I hear you, and i totally agree. I just don't see how to win against them. The odds are so stacked against us.
So you just want to simplify things? Many people play this game because its requires more thought than 40K, and its not as easy to play. If you want simplification, then go play 40k. 40K is generally Fantasy simplified.
Why do people say this? There is NO basis for this statement. I play both games and find it to be the other way around. 40K is so much more dynamic and complex. Fantasy you set up, move forward, and the guy with better list and luck wins. There is more variability in Fantasy because of the all important moral test, which some armies just ignore, or throwing only 5 dice in a combat which easily can vary widely from the average.
40K has so much more maneuver, and forward thinking, plus with the higher number of dice thrown, it comes closer to averages meaning in most cases you rely less on luck.
Plus, and I don't think anyone can counter this, the balance in Fantasy is a major issue, much more so than in 40K. Look at tournament results in Fantasy, they are dominated by the big 3.
Now of course everyone is entitles to their opinions, but as for me, I feel that being good at 40K is just as, if not more difficult than in Fantasy.
As a good friend of mine said that plays both systems avidly, Fantasy is more about strategy (list, army and set up) whereas 40K is more about tactics (unit decision on a per turn basis). I prefer the later and think it is the more difficult game to master, but that is my opinion.
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
Interesting rumour, not untirely unbelievable, although a big change.
I assume that would not only get us buying more models (*cue GW execs dancng in the background*) but it would also help make Troops have a bigger advantage against the elite units. As it won't be as viable to have them running around with four ranks anymore.
Just thinking on those lines, as GW does seem to want to reign in elite squads all the time, but haven't as yet found a good way of doing it.
25816
Post by: Asrodrig
Wow, if this rumor is true, then I'm going to start running 10 x 3 units of Saurus Warriors with Spears. That would be quite a wall.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
JohnHwangDD wrote:At least 10-wide units would look historically accurate.
Not in a world where regiments are 20-30 warriors and battlefields are 48-72".
BTW what is the historically correct army formation for daemons and bipedal rats and lizards?
11558
Post by: Uriels_Flame
OT:
MDS - I can't figure out what is creeping me out more about your Avatar - that it is just creepy in and of itself or if that is actually a guy . . .
18072
Post by: TBD
Uriels_Flame wrote:OT:
MDS - I can't figure out what is creeping me out more about your Avatar - that it is just creepy in and of itself or if that is actually a guy . . .
That is Daffney from TNA wrestling I think.
18277
Post by: Khornholio
"Infantry will fight 2 deep" - "10 wide ranks"
So a unit of Chaos Warriors with the Mark of Khorne with double hand weapons on the charge will get 81 attacks at WS 6? Despite the wargasm, it's a bit excessive.
I personally can't see this happening. I've played for a long time and this just seems too extreme of a change. I can see them trying to change the game to sell more minis and books. I can see them going back to percentages and even allowing "allies" and such. But just mushing your 2 20 man units together won't sell heaps of stuff. They expanded the frontages before by one and it made enough sense esthetically, but doubling it?
I think someone at GW is having a laugh by dropping crazy rumours.
21638
Post by: El Cacique
I have been on the fence for months now about leaving fantasy. If this 10 model wide rule comes about it will tip the scale toward me ebaying everything.
6072
Post by: nieto666
FlammingGaunt wrote:I think 10 man wide is a too much. Though i'd like to see magic buffed a tad.
Magic buffed! Are you serious man. Must have never played against a 24 power dice daemon list. Anyways Ill beleave it when I see it with the ranks haveing to be 10 wide to get a rank bonues. That would totaly nerf Skaven so I doubt that will happen. The idea is to buff infantry not debuff them more!! Myabe running ten wide will add more res to the ranks you already have, perhaps doubleing rank bonus's. Have to wait and see though.
123
Post by: Alpharius
This is starting to flail around fairly wildly...
But how much of this is substantiated (ha!) and how much of it is idle speculation and/or fear mongering?
It might be time for this to move on over to Fantasy General Discussions...
13250
Post by: Lord of battles
Any clue on the starter set yet?
2889
Post by: Jin
Lord of battles wrote:Any clue on the starter set yet?
There seemed to have been confirmations of HE vs. Skaven.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
TBD wrote:That is Daffney from TNA wrestling I think.
At least she has nice implants.
2776
Post by: Reecius
OK, so hear is the latest on this as relayed to me from another source:
You can get up to a +9 rank bonus for going 10 by 10.
So, you have a unit that gets boned by a flank charge but will have huge static res.
Take it as you will, I am just passing along what I hear.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Be great for my Skaven if it was true, but who else is going to field regiments of 100 miniatures?
11978
Post by: greenskin lynn
Flashman wrote:Be great for my Skaven if it was true, but who else is going to field regiments of 100 miniatures?
all those people sitting on hundreds of skull pass goblins
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
Apologies for quick OT, but others did start it off.
Uriels_Flame wrote:OT:
MDS - I can't figure out what is creeping me out more about your Avatar - that it is just creepy in and of itself or if that is actually a guy . . .
It's just her, it's part of the gimmick, shes playing her 'crazed Goth' persona atm. Although saying atm maybe a little false, most of the time she's been playing some kind of twisted character.. Draculetta, Shark Girl, Lucy Furr, hell she even played Sarah Palin for a while in TNA.
TBD wrote:
That is Daffney from TNA wrestling I think.
Ding, and shes awesome in the ring as well.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
At least she has nice implants.
How dare ye sir, there is no proof that miss Shannon Spruill has anything but good ole natural talent when it comes to that department. 
She also has some awesome tattoos.
Oh and just to freak you out a bit more Uriel.. I love this shot.. hehe
back OT - I also wondering about Skirmishers if this was right, would be a kick in the teeth and put them back in the squarely we are there to cause interfence, take out easy targets and little else.
21966
Post by: col. krazy kenny
Anybody know of which models are in the new box set.
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
Anybody know of which models are in the new box set.
Based on the lack of relevant content or ability to stay on topic in most of the recent posts in this thread, apparently not. Most of the rumors about content of the Core "starter" set up to this point revolve around possible Skaven and Elves.
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
There has also been rumoured Skaven having at least one/two weapon teams, and the High Elves having a Griffon.
Although the later seems an odd call unless its for pure scenario play in the box.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
greenskin lynn wrote:Flashman wrote:Be great for my Skaven if it was true, but who else is going to field regiments of 100 miniatures?
all those people sitting on hundreds of skull pass goblins
That sounds... painful.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
At least she has nice implants.
How dare ye sir, there is no proof that miss Shannon Spruill has anything but good ole natural talent when it comes to that department.
Aside from having huge D+ boobs on a sporty frame that wouldn't have more than a B-cup without them?
Riiiight...
2776
Post by: Reecius
Come on John, it is not impossible for a thin girl to have large breasts, I know quite a few girls that were born so lucky.
It just isn't common is all.
And besides, we live in SoCal, silicone and saline are so prevalent here I don't know why you would even care. It's almost a shocker to meet a girl here who doesn't have some after market accessories.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Aftermarket is good
We're spoiled here in SoCal. That is all....
2776
Post by: Reecius
Haha, no joke! Going to the beach here in San Diego or in Orange County on a sunny day, which they almost always are, is just eye candy heaven.
Yeah, we are definitely spoiled here, and I am not complaining!
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Reecius wrote:OK, so hear is the latest on this as relayed to me from another source:
You can get up to a +9 rank bonus for going 10 by 10.
So, you have a unit that gets boned by a flank charge but will have huge static res.
Take it as you will, I am just passing along what I hear.
Way that sounds, seems to me that you could claim a # of ranks=to the # of files in the unit, with no bonus for the first rank, up to a max of +9 at 10x10. If so, this could be good.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Yeah, i'm seeing some +5 without command from a 36 man unit (go gobbos!). If that's the direction they go that's pretty nice though still actually a little harsher against armies like dwarves who have expensive infantry units. With just a minimum how short the front rank can be.
2776
Post by: Reecius
Yeah I agree.
Again, this could not be true, but I have been told this now by two different people who have always been reliable.
They said the purpose was to give rank and file infantry more purpose. Also there is meant to be more emphasis placed on objectives instead of just always playing pitched battles.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Well if you allow units like ironbreakers to fight in two ranks I think it'll be ok. The increase in combat effectiveness for the loss of the static res though will pretty much be a wash. I'm holding back judgement until it comes out. I'm hoping it's like 5th Edition 40k and gets me back into fantasy playing my dwarves or orgres. If not then there is always ebay or 9th Edition
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Am I the only person that thinks there is nothing none with the current fantasy system? I sincerley hope not! People talk of different tiers for different armies, and it's true, that some armies are tougher than others, but it boils down to ability. I've lost plenty of games with demons, and won a fair few against them with Empire and greenskins, which are supposed to be weaker.
As for the rules changes, I don't want it going the way of 40K. Not that there is anything wrong with 40k, but fantasy needs to remember the traits that make it what it is.
2776
Post by: Reecius
I personally think magic is way overpowered right now (I have played too many 18 to 24 magic dice armies and seen my army obliterated with NOTHING I could do to stop it), and some armies are just too powerful.
I think the game could really be improved by allowing rank and file to play a bigger part in the game. Right now I see the game playing like 40K. Lots of small units that shoot or cast spells, flying around the table.
I personally would like to see more blocks of infantry and calvary duking it out.
Or how about this for a hoot, a Warriors of Chaos army with actual Warriors in it!?
I think the game could just use a lot of improvement right now, but that is just my opinion.
9892
Post by: Flashman
I have no massive problems with 7th, but GW do like to fiddle and the introduction of cavalry impact hits is a must for me. If this turns up in 8th, together with a decent boxed set for Empire Knights, I will force myself to get over my mental block regarding modelling horses
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
A lot of the points about rank and file are valid, but damn, they are so boring! And they take ages to paint! For me, fantasy is about warriors battling through time, hacking away a each other with killing blow and such like a la Highlander. Who cares about grotty Brettonian spearmen. I don't! Well, i do when I'm placing the 5 inch template on them
9892
Post by: Flashman
Got to have rank and file to give your army a dramatic sweep IMHO. Yes, it does taking forever, but I'm kind of enjoying putting together a chittering horde of rats for the visual impact if nothing else!
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Twice, I've tried to collect Skaven, and twice I've abdoned ship, so fair play to anyone with the stamina to paint 200 odd models.
One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is the LOTR style throwing a knife/axe at someone just as you charge them.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Hulksmash wrote:Aftermarket is good
We're spoiled here in SoCal. That is all....
Amen, guys.
Recall, I said her implants looked good. That's not a criticism or negative in any way. They're large, but more-or-less proportionate, like early (Tool Time) Pamela Anderson.
18277
Post by: Khornholio
I have no major problems with 7th ed. either. I think the 'issues' are in the army books. Although, cavalry impact hits sounds like a reasonable addition to the rules as it can be applied universally, except to Dwarfs.
5513
Post by: privateer4hire
Khornholio wrote:I have no major problems with 7th ed. either. I think the 'issues' are in the army books. Although, cavalry impact hits sounds like a reasonable addition to the rules as it can be applied universally, except to Dwarfs.
Agreed that the rules themselves are pretty solid. Reasonable army books are present but codex creeped after a point.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Current 7th Edition issues though the rules are written very well, it's the game as a whole that has issues:
-Magic is far to effective. Could be a codex balance issue but simple fact is magic doesn't have enough of a down side and can be invested in heavily quite easily. Even in 40k right now with the boost in psychic powers your still limited to just 2-4 per army generally. As opposed to 4x that for the same points in fantasy.
-Block infantry is pointless currently. People that take blocks just get danced around the entire game while people play denial. Introduction of objectives that only blocks of core could take would be a huge move in the right direction. Forcing people to fight is what's really needed.
-Shooting. To many modifiers and to inefficient for the cost of the units. Mostly just get rid of the modifiers and it'll change the game quite a bit.
-Psychology. Everyone and their grandma ignores it. It needs a revamp and they need to stop handing it out like it's candy. Panic is a huge part of game but half the armies never have to take a test and have models that are cheaper than the units that do.
-Not enough dice rolled. Just what I said. Right now you don't get anywhere near an average set of rolls on your dice because you don't roll enough dice. Ergo luck plays a dispirportionate (sp?) role.
-Change how movement works. It needs to be faster and cleaner. Right now half the game can be argued away in the movement phase on wheels and shifts.
Fantasy needs a massive revamp. Some of it is codexes but the game needs to be reworked so that it plays differently. Personally I hope it's as large of a change as the change between 4th and 5th edition 40k.
4661
Post by: Minsc
Personally, I laughed at the "Fantasy is mostly list and luck, 40K requires more skill" bit. 40K more than anything else is list + not rolling poorly when your Uber unit does what it's supposed to. I mean, if the lists and armies are 60% of the success and luck another 10%, how can I keep forcing draws or only minor defeats / victories against top tier armies with Orcs simply by playing to my advantages and the weakness' of theirs? I mean, shouldn't I be massacred 70% of the time since my luck with the dice is crap and they have at least two tier advantages over me?
Regardless, onto the rules proper:
+ Up to +9 Ranks is a good change, to me. Since you need at least 25 models to get to +4 and 30 models to get to +5, it's not like this is going to suddenly make it stupidly easy to get another rank (for some army costing you upwards of 50-100 points for a single combat res that can't do anything for several turns).
- Needing a 10 wide front, however, is a bad change to me. A very, very bad one. I can understand why they'd want to increase the minimum frontage, both for appearances and if they are going to allow up to +9 Ranks. However, a 10 wide front is going to be impossible to maintain unless you have Goblin, Slave, or Zombie in your unit name.
- Fighting until everything dies / someone runs. No. That ruins the point of an anvil. If you put a unit out to make the enemy stick their proverbial willy in the meatgrinder now, they're going to be lined up for a pair of flank charges. You do it next edition, they'll plow straight through your lines after you spend sixty minutes rolling out the unstoppable unit against the unmoveable unit.
- Fighting in an extra rank. See the "Roll dice" thing. Because I really enjoy the prospect of seeing 81 attacks from a unit of Khorne Warriors / some Savage Orc units / certain Witch Elf units.
If the "extra rank fighting", "10 wide front", or "fight until destroyed / broken" things are true, then - as another suggested - I might just give up on the hobby. I'm watching veterans around me drop like flies in 40K and Fantasy as the rule changes are just killing the desire to play.
If 8th Edition came out and all the above rules were put into effect, I can pretty much promise you that, outside maybe two people in my GW (those who're GW's favored customer type: That buy $300 of gak every new army and $100 for each of those armies for each new edition), everyone who played Fantasy would either sell their stuff, pack it away for the long haul, stop going to the hobby shop and play older editions, or just play the older editions within the shop.
Reading the changes, yeah, it would fix some of the problems. But by creating a whole slew of new ones. I don't want the problems to be fixed by me spending $200 that will probably lead to the exact same problems again (unbalanced armies) five books into the new edition, I want to see my problems fixed by people taking a fething effort that doesn't start with "Insert next paycheck here."
123
Post by: Alpharius
We're almost there...
2776
Post by: Reecius
We're almost where? To locking the thread? Why?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Hulksmash wrote:-Magic is far to effective.
-Not enough dice rolled. Ergo luck plays a dispirportionate (sp?) role.
Personally I hope it's as large of a change as the change between 4th and 5th edition 40k.
I would expect nothing less than a 40k5-scale revamp going to WFB8. However, it's interesting that a lot of what you're complaining about appears to have been fundamentally addressed by War of the Ring.
That said, I think the dumb luck factor is probably going to stay. A lot of WFB players like the fact that it's easy (and common) for the tide of battle to swing back and forth, and the way that happens is by minimizing dice rolls so that extreme results occur more often. Following this path of game design, one could reasonably expect more "Thorpian" effects on 1s and 6s where there currently aren't any to accelerate the game. For example, right now, to-hit in HtH is either 3s, 4s or 5s, so add some Thorpian effects to give big results on the outliers that cut dice: 1 to-hit does a free hit back, 6 to-hit auto-wounds, 6 to-wound negates saves.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
@Minsc
So what your saying is that you don't win much with your Orcs so the game is ok? Saying that fantasy is 70 percent pre-game just means your not going to win probably even 40% of your games against a Daemon list and more than likely a lot more losses. That's a balanced game system for you?
To be honest a change to the way the game functions will see a lot more people come back. I know a lot of people that have stopped playing fantasy currently and look to the new rules to revive it for them. Much like many people stopped playing 40k in the year leading up to 5th. Mostly because 4th edition was 75% list building.
@John
Actually War of the Ring is a much better game overall than the current Fantasy game. And I can see them integrating a lot of the rules into Fantasy to make the game involve more playing in general.
13250
Post by: Lord of battles
A friend of mine said that the war of the ring was an experiment for the new edition of FB (apparently the ex-local store manager was told that as part of the info about the War of the ring)
4661
Post by: Minsc
Hulksmash wrote:@Minsc
So what your saying is that you don't win much with your Orcs so the game is ok?
What I'm saying is if the game was so heavily based on army / list as well as luck, how come I can force a draw / minor victory dash defeat most of the time via tactics when seemingly that makes up only 30% of the game? Supposedly if 40K that would make total sense, but in Fantasy that has gotta be some sort of anomaly or outlier to the standard order of things.
Hulksmash wrote:Saying that fantasy is 70 percent pre-game just means your not going to win probably even 40% of your games against a Daemon list and more than likely a lot more losses. That's a balanced game system for you?
If the majority of my games are ending in draws and minor victories / defeats? Yes. That's what balance is. It's not a balanced system overall, but fixing the problem by making most of the armies that already suck suck more until the player shells out another $150 to make all their units have an additional +6 Combat Res from ranks doesn't sound balanced to me. Maybe in rules / theory, but once you apply money to the equation that all goes down the john.
443
Post by: skyth
The biggest problem with Fantasy is the Army books, not the core rules.
Having to go 10 wide would kill my desire to play the game. If my armies are nerfed into oblivion, I don't have the resources to buy a whole bunch of things to make them playable again.
However, maybe the rank bonus is based on the unit being square...For instance, a 5x5 unit is a +5 Rank bonus, a 6x6 is a +6?
I will say that player skill plays a lot more of a factor in Fantasy than it is in 40k. At least in Fantasy, it isn't possible to build an army that cannot win a battle regardless of luck, etc like it is in 40k.
11558
Post by: Uriels_Flame
I have also heard that LotR plays much easier and based on fantasy concepts.
I also enjoyed playing Warmaster because of the relative ease of play.
Agreed - Psych is a farce, and Magic is too influential.
And OT:
I thought this was a much better pic
Although - Is it really off topic if she's in chainmail and we're talking about WHFB???
2776
Post by: Reecius
Not at all! Totally on topic and bring more of it, I say!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Minsc
You are the exception to the rule. Look at tournament results and you see them absolutely dominated by the big three. Orks and Gobbos are not even close to holding their own.
@Skyth
Can you clarify your statement? IN 40K it is possible to make a list that will win regardless of luck? What army is that?
Saying Fantasy requires more skill than 40K is a fallacy. They are apples and oranges.
Both games require a huge amount of skill to win with, but my stance is that right now, Fantasy is just flat out not as much fun to play, at least for me, due to balance issues.
An ignoramus with a good Daemon list that just moves straight forward and casts spells will win the majority of his games.
The game needs some balancing. I for one don;t even like playing it that much right now unless it is a friendly game. 40K is just infinitely more engaging and fun for me at the moment.
7926
Post by: youbedead
What if it was when units contact eachother they move to ten wide not the unit has to be ten wide
443
Post by: skyth
Reecius wrote:@Skyth
Can you clarify your statement? IN 40K it is possible to make a list that will win regardless of luck? What army is that?
Actually, the opposite...An army that cannot win unless they are playing someone that let's themselves be tabled...There are a couple armies that can make an army with no scoring units. (Orks and Nids)
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Being able to build a bad army list isn't any different from deliberately playing badly.
443
Post by: skyth
If you're playing badly, you can still win
11558
Post by: Uriels_Flame
I got hit with the Nerf Bat . . .
Can I have my picture back please
6145
Post by: Gitkikka
Minimum of 10 a rank to get bonuses? Looks like the boyz are going to be living in my Warhammer Quest dungeons for a while.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
I'm not sure that 10 ranks bonus would even work at all.
Why would anyone want to rank models 10 wide?
Sure you would be pretty much guaranteed to get all the unit in combat, but even if they are going to fight in 2 ranks you'd be relying a lot more on CR than on rank bonuses..
Hmm... maybe I answered my own question there? They are trying to seriously nerf the whole concept of the rank bonus to just an added bonus?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
skyth wrote:If you're playing badly, you can still win
Not if you're trying to lose.
And BTW, those 40k armies with NO Scoring Units? Easily able to win by tabling the opponent...
17836
Post by: Ixquic
I really hope that WotR isn't a test run for Fantasy 8th unless they acknowledge the severe flaws that game has. Most people only play it with friends since it isn't very popular so they don't notice the huge problems but once you bring in any elements of power gaming into it, everything totally breaks down. "Player restraint" has always been GW's plan for ultimate game balance which is a horrible idea in general but WotR is practically designed around it.
Personally I don't think there's really anything you can fix with a new ruleset that will hurt the current power armies at all at least in relation to the other lower tier books. Really there needs to be a total reset to see any real change but apparently they aren't doing that. There have been some store run campaigns with weird scenarios with kill points and claiming terrain but with quarters deployments lately which has been theorized as a get used to the new ideas you'll be playing in four months deal. If that's the best they can do to try and reel in demons (in won't since tabling your opponent will always be a win) I'm just going to concentrate on 40k and Warmachine for actual fun and just buy a demon army to bring to tournies every few months.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
If they buff infantry units and force more contact I'll probably like the new edition. With Dwarves it's like pulling teeth playing a tournament game right now. With Ogres it's just funny since the largest basic creature army in Fantasy has the biggest issues with leadership
17836
Post by: Ixquic
I think a big problem with Ogres that there is no way to fix is that 90% of the army is expensive multi-wound models. Fighting Skaven is incredibly unfun since they have so much stuff that has a D6 or D3 wound multiplier on everything it hits (auto hitting Doomwheel lightning, Warp lighting Cannons with no partial templates, Hellpit Abominations) so you are basically picking up tons of 35+ point models every turn. Even the dreaded 13th spell is ridiculous. I played a guy that just threw 5 dice at it every turn since if it went off I was removing 4D6 ogres which is impossible to survive from no matter how low he rolled.
Basically Ogres will always be a low tier army no matter what they do for it with the new book, especially with the current 7th edition books which will be valid for the next four years.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Well that just makes it worse. To be honest I've started to avoid fantasy about 6 months back due to the unfun nature of the game. I'm just praying that 8th gets me back. I only have 3-4 3k armies for it and I don't want to have to go thru the effort of selling them all
958
Post by: mikhaila
April 17th we'll get some info. There should be some sort of information about 8th edition going up on the website.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Sweet, that's pretty soon.
Also, can we drop the 40k chit chat from this thread, I'm sure it could be a great conversation in the 40k General Discussions forum but it doesn't belong here.
6005
Post by: Death By Monkeys
Can anyone who's played a good bit of WotR describe how gameplay there works and how it could be integrated into WHFb?
17836
Post by: Ixquic
The turns are played by alternating player phases. So one guy moves his stuff, the other guy moves his stuff, then the next guy shoots and then the other shoots.
There's no rolls to hit. Depending on what type of unit you are (monster, cavalry, infantry) and what your fight statistic is versus the unit you are in combat with and if you charged you get more dice to throw. Toughness and armor are basically jammed into one stat.
Units are in formations. So you have trays with eight slots that hold models which are then made into infantry formations then 2 slot trays for cavalry formations. Movement is pretty lax, it's not nearly as restrictive as fantasy with 25% turns, reforms and such.
Stuff has special abilities that generally use might to use. Some of these are pretty ridiculous. Spells mostly just go off but can be stopped with opposing wizards and stuff and get harder to cast the more you use.
There's variable charge distance. You roll a dice and add that to your movement. If you can't reach your target (a 1 on that roll always fails) then you stall and typically get counter charged. This brings the "super randomness of small amounts of dice rolled" really big into focus if you like or hate that.
Generally the system isn't bad and has some interesting ideas. The problem was that there was absolutely no playtesting whatsoever since there are obviously broken stuff once you start comboing things which generally have almost no restrictions. Dol Amroth knights have a +1 to wound because of their lance. They also have a hero that gives them +1 to wound. There is also no 1s always fail rule so if you are up against something that you would normally wound on 3+, you don't need to roll, just take off as many guys as I'm picking up dice. Certain models generate might. You can stack multiples of these to get basically infinite might so there is no limit to your army's special abilities. Radagast has an ability where no one can charge his formation; there's no roll or test it just works. With tons of extra might I think you can see where that combo goes. There's tons of stuff like that which is a power gamer's dream but it really is just a mess of things that sounded cool on paper and went straight into the book without thinking them through. It's a Matt Ward book so his massive incompetance seeps through pretty strongly.
443
Post by: skyth
Variable charge distance really doesn't belong in Fantasy.
5394
Post by: reds8n
The plastic trolls and boarboyz hit May 22nd.
£27 for the former, £15 for the latter.
Kudos to Mr. Hastings on Warseer for the info.
2889
Post by: Jin
reds8n wrote:The plastic trolls and boarboyz hit May 22nd.
£27 for the former, £15 for the latter.
Kudos to Mr. Hastings on Warseer for the info.
So ~$35-40USD for the trolls and $25 for the Boarboyz? Not bad. The Boarboyz prices will be in line with the DE Cold One Knights then.
19548
Post by: cpt_fishcakes
Looking forward to some multipart Troll goodness, and high time the old thalidomide ravaged Boars were updated.
On the subject of the 10 wide discussion I dont see it happening, we are led to believe that the new Skaven and Beasts books are made for 8th ed. Things as ever have stayed pretty much the same just with a few tweeks changes and the odd new thing. 10 wide to get rank would need a big decrease in the cost of core troops otherwise rank bonuses would be out of reach of a lot of army's unless you were playing 3000+ point games. Though it wouldn't affect my Night Gobbos they are 10 wide as standard 
5394
Post by: reds8n
There's quite a lot of wider than 5 units in the books aren't there though ?
19548
Post by: cpt_fishcakes
Well they always like to show big flashy units in the books.
Personally I would love it to go 10 wide it would suit my style of play, which is using massed core units and few characters and other fancy stuff. But 10 seams a bit of big jump and would hurt armys that have better than average but expensive infantry like Dwarfs. Though if the two ranks attacking rumor is also true then I can see that balancing thing out, which makes my argument pointless 
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
reds8n wrote: There's quite a lot of wider than 5 units in the books aren't there though ?
Spill it Red!
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
reds8n wrote: There's quite a lot of wider than 5 units in the books aren't there though ?
So when are they going up on the site for preorder?
123
Post by: Alpharius
reds8n wrote: There's quite a lot of wider than 5 units in the books aren't there though ?
Are there?
Someone care to list them?
9892
Post by: Flashman
Alpharius wrote:reds8n wrote: There's quite a lot of wider than 5 units in the books aren't there though ?
Are there?
Someone care to list them?
Skaven are the obvious example I can think of, particularly units with Plague Furnances or Screaming Bells.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Assuming the pre order question was actually about the trolls and that... hmm... about 2 weeks AFAIK. That said there has been some issues witht eh site of late -- whole swathe of the weekend it couldn't accept card payments at all -- but that would fit with the month or so early for this sort of thing.
With regards to the ranks... well... what I heard was something that ran along the lines of a unit of infantry could attack with a number of ranks equal to half their frontage (rounding down), with certain beasts etc ( I assume things like ogres etc etc) counting as X number of normal infantry ( I want to say Unit Strength here but a lot of my fantasy knowwats aint all that). THusly a 10 wide block could attack with 5 ranks, an 8 wide block ( which I believe we see a few of in the Skaven book) could attack with 4 and a unit of 6 monsters.. like those 2 by 3 units of Minotaurs we've seen of late, could attack with both ranks. This could/would then be affected further by things like spears, other weapons, err... other things that matter in fantasy.
As to whether or not this is true now or ever was....... I have no idea.. currently.. but....
It provides a bit of a help for Ogres/similar and would perhaps go some way to explaining a possible delay in regards to the production of their book, which is AFAIK still miles off.
Would provide more brutal "assaults" which involves more of the models, and would, I think, resolve fights quicker as more people died/actually did stuff other than sitting there. You might actually have a reason to paint ( and buy!) that extra rank of identically armed spearmen now maybe.
Would sell more models and perhaps go some way to making actual hordey type armies a bit more viable.
Bear in mind : obviously this would be balanced and affected by any other changes they made in the system and... this might not be true or that accurate. Ideas are tried and discarded many times during the development of a ruleset, let's not go into meltdown mode eh please .
26386
Post by: hungryp
Not much to add as far as rumors go, other than that I heard the rumor of one-turn combat res from the staff at my old local GW a couple months back.
Orlanth wrote:
Perhaps Jervis was enough of a moron to actually think is a good idea, that I can believe. But someone in GW studio ought to be level headed enough to see this for the colossally bad idea it is.
Please, if anyone at GW actually had any desire to keep Jervis's BS in check, he would've been fired years ago.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
I don't like the idea of 1 turn combat resolution at all. From a gaming point of view, I like the idea of units colliding and fighting wars of attrition and elites holding their ground against massed hordes in 'might vs masses' battles. Quick kill n move on is for 40k and modern warfare styles imo.
24035
Post by: Ostrakon
All I wanna know is what the deal with the 8th starter is. I really want to try my hand at Fantasy, game looks fun as hell.
19548
Post by: cpt_fishcakes
I noticed that mentions earlier, it would be a hideous turn of events for Warhammer if it were true. Mass pitched Battle slug fests have kept me interested in Fantasy for 20 years. My huge units of Goblins would seam rather pointless if it all fighting boils down to 1 round of combat, either you win or all die.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
cpt_fishcakes wrote:I noticed that mentions earlier, it would be a hideous turn of events for Warhammer if it were true. Mass pitched Battle slug fests have kept me interested in Fantasy for 20 years. My huge units of Goblins would seam rather pointless if it all fighting boils down to 1 round of combat, either you win or all die.
So would tarpit skellie units.
Which would be sad, as I think I finally actually wanna do TK this year(I'll believe it when I put the money down, I've been saying that about Skaven for 3 years, too...).
19548
Post by: cpt_fishcakes
Heres hopping rumors and idle speculation turn out to be just that.
But the general consensus seems to be that core units will get a big boost, this can only be a good thing. I find my self getting more and more concerned at how this is going to be achieved though. I think I should just stop reading rumor threads
2776
Post by: Reecius
Just wait and see to pass judgement, you never know. It may end up being a turn for the better in the end! Worrying about it at any rate won't change anything.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Reds8n's extra rank attacks revelation (see above) would be a major game changer. It would certainly liven up combat and would be perfect for skaven
However, it would mess up some armies quite badly with Undead being the worst hit I think (it doesn't help that they are rubbish in close combat).
The rule for spears would have to change too. -1 to hit or perhaps denying those extra rank attacks to their opponents.
181
Post by: gorgon
reds8n wrote: With regards to the ranks... well... what I heard was something that ran along the lines of a unit of infantry could attack with a number of ranks equal to half their frontage (rounding down), with certain beasts etc ( I assume things like ogres etc etc) counting as X number of normal infantry ( I want to say Unit Strength here but a lot of my fantasy knowwats aint all that). THusly a 10 wide block could attack with 5 ranks, an 8 wide block ( which I believe we see a few of in the Skaven book) could attack with 4 and a unit of 6 monsters.. like those 2 by 3 units of Minotaurs we've seen of late, could attack with both ranks. This could/would then be affected further by things like spears, other weapons, err... other things that matter in fantasy.
 Huh! Yeah, that would explain the mino formations. I figure the Beastmen movement spell will be explained by moving magic to the first phase. Hmm...wonder just how much of a lift the Beasts are gonna get once 8th hits?
443
Post by: skyth
Another thing with 10 wide...It would be almost impossible to maneuver them. Wheeling wouldn't get them anywhere fast.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Perhaps, WFB8 will do away with the archaic "wheel" nonsense and simply require that no model move more than M or 2xM from its original position.
9594
Post by: RiTides
But that would greatly nullify manuevering/flanking/etc... it'd be just moving your large block almost like a big skirmisher... not what I'd like to see...
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
No, it wouldn't, because the guy on the far corner limits how far the unit can go.
There's no free distance gained from pivot, so kills conga lines dead.
4661
Post by: Minsc
Heard rumor (no sources I can give ATM: From another forum and they didn't share their source) that magic is going to come first in the game, before charges. That'd make sense with the new Beast book, as then the omission of being able to charge would be because you could still charge after spell declaration. Hopefully - if this is true - it is actually "Spells before movement", and not the introduction of a horrid "Charge" phase to WHFB.
I'm still less than amused by a 10 wide front. While I have the models to do this (Yay, Orcs & Goblins!), there's still the issue that thirty models gives me +2 combat res. I wonder how much that's going to matter with my enemy's 20-to-30 attacking models to balance it out. Seriously, outside something stupid like Night Goblins v Chosen with Shields there's pretty much no reason to try getting past +1 or +2 from Ranks as just by attacking you can make up oodles more CR points than by buying another rank.
I don't like the concept of multiple ranks fighting, as - while I can see where some of the advantages are (A full rank not bothered by the Nurgle Daemon's de-buff spells), it doesn't counter the whole new can of worms (specifically: Chaos Warriors is pretty much going to scream to the very top of the lists as they're going to eat people alive in hand to hand, and with the lack of flanking or support charges due to the one-phase combats there's going to be no way to overthrow their likely double-digit CR from wounds).
7926
Post by: youbedead
Minsc wrote:Heard rumor (no sources I can give ATM: From another forum and they didn't share their source) that magic is going to come first in the game, before charges. That'd make sense with the new Beast book, as then the omission of being able to charge would be because you could still charge after spell declaration. Hopefully - if this is true - it is actually "Spells before movement", and not the introduction of a horrid "Charge" phase to WHFB.
I'm still less than amused by a 10 wide front. While I have the models to do this (Yay, Orcs & Goblins!), there's still the issue that thirty models gives me +2 combat res. I wonder how much that's going to matter with my enemy's 20-to-30 attacking models to balance it out. Seriously, outside something stupid like Night Goblins v Chosen with Shields there's pretty much no reason to try getting past +1 or +2 from Ranks as just by attacking you can make up oodles more CR points than by buying another rank.
I don't like the concept of multiple ranks fighting, as - while I can see where some of the advantages are (A full rank not bothered by the Nurgle Daemon's de-buff spells), it doesn't counter the whole new can of worms (specifically: Chaos Warriors is pretty much going to scream to the very top of the lists as they're going to eat people alive in hand to hand, and with the lack of flanking or support charges due to the one-phase combats there's going to be no way to overthrow their likely double-digit CR from wounds).
Just for fun
2o kohrn warriors full command dual hand weapons 81 attacks
50 gobos with spears 31 attacks
warriors
54 hits
45 wounds
45 dead gobos
gobos
11 hits
8 wounds
4 dead
gobos combat res 8
warriors 48
4661
Post by: Minsc
Hey, thanks for proving my point See, right there the extra goblins are more helpful than the attacks. Not that it really helped much, but the point remains that extra ranks were more helpful there and the Khorne Warriors are pretty much never going to need more than that one extra rank.
EDIT: And, likely, this would hold true versus any army's rank and file with said Warriors.
4298
Post by: Spellbound
I just want it to stay the way it is, and add multiple ranks fighting. No need for 10 wide or whatever.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Jambodini over at Ogre Stronghold posted this rumour:
I was at Warhammer World on Monday and was chatting to a member of staff there. He revealed a few things about the Fantasy update:
1) Fantasy 8th edition is out in summer.
2) The box set - The Gates of Calith - is High Elves and Skaven
3) The Elves get new spearmen and a plastic lord on Griffon
4) The Skaven get a Screaming bell ( :shock
5) Forge World are definetly doing a Chaos Dwarf rules set and models.
6) The Chaos Dwarfs are estimated to be out in 18 months, but the staff member suspects it might be about 3 years!
Hope these are good rumours,
-Jambodini
Not sure about the tidbit about another screaming bell in the starter.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Pass me the sodium chloride so I can take a few grains to scatter liberally over this rumour.
1, 2 and 3 I'll buy. 4 makes no sense whatsoever, especially given GWs bean counting nature. A Hell Pit Abomination would be more logical as they used loads of these at the Calith dust up. 5 and 6? All very well, but it doesn't really give Chaos Dwarf players the official army they've been after.
18072
Post by: TBD
Skaven vs High Elves still doesn't appeal to me at all. For an introduction set these particular armies are a wrong choice, Imo.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Well I'm sold but only because of my addiction to all things warpstone related. I'll sell the Elves...
735
Post by: JOHIRA
TBD wrote:Skaven vs High Elves still doesn't appeal to me at all. For an introduction set these particular armies are a wrong choice, Imo.
Actually, if the elves don't have enormous faces or hands and come with a decent set of archers, I will most likely buy a box. And probably keep the Skaven, one day filling them out to an army in their own right. I'm not in need of an introduction to fantasy, but it would change this customer from half-heartedly collecting one army to collecting 3.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
High Elves desperately need new standards. And it is always nice to make those 100 Skaven clan rats and slaves not only from that one plastic box. Although new night runners are needed even more. Personal preferences aside (I like both races), those army choices are not bad: Who actually wants to field a goblin army ... with the current army book??
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
No need for any salt - all 6 of them have been well-rumored before.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
10 wide for a rank bonus? That makes no sense.
Fantasy seems to be more balanced than 40k.
A new edition is always welcome.
What will be in the starter box?
12471
Post by: Buttlerthepug
Woah... more balanced than 40k? I beg to differ but lets not get into that on this thread...
I however will probably quit the game if these rumors are true (and I can garentee there is a ton of people who will do the exact same thing). I can understand if they are trying to sell more models, but that is definitely not the way to do it in my opinion. I hope they rethink this through if they seriosuly think this will make the game (and sales for that matter) better...
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
JohnHwangDD wrote:No need for any salt - all 6 of them have been well-rumored before.
All 6 of them? Name and screaming bell were new to me, can't believe another screaming bell is in the starter.
9892
Post by: Flashman
No, I can't believe it either. Unless it's a simplified Screaming Bell like the AoBR Dread is simplified, GW are kind of shooting themselves in the foot with this one. I'm not complaining though, as I will happily accept it into my ranks if it looks any good.
6559
Post by: GMMStudios
Was chatting via email with the local club and some things hit me. I will just copy paste:
By the way have any of you seen the new fantasy rumors. Im kinda liking them. I have a very strong feeling war of the ring was partial a test of the waters for what is coming. Im not sure if I like the idea of TEN wide, but the fact that there will be at least 20+ dice being thrown per unit means the game will be a lot less random, which I like. I like my little dudes to be somewhat reliable in the math hehe.
Also magic is rumored to be the first phase of the turn, in line with some of the wording of the new Beastmen spells.
So in a nutshell:
- must be 10 wide to get a rank BONUS
- the number of ranks you fight in, is your frontage divided by two. Monsters have a similar formula, and will be able to fight in two ranks
So with the above in mind, you dont HAVE to run ten wide, in fact a 6x3 block of something like swordmasters would be killer.
Many people have also speculated that since 10 wide will not be able to wheel at all, they are doing away with it for a WotR style movement, where one single model cannot move more than maximum.
Magic in first phase.
I have a big feeling that this is 50% to make things fresh since fantasy is pretty stale nationally (thanks demons and Phil Kelly) and 50% to balance the current books. Think about the problems of each book, and then the above.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Fighting in ranks wont help high elves at all.. Im assuming there is a LOT more to it than just "fight in ranks"
They always strike first, and have T3 with bad armor.. Sword masters do not want to fight in ranks because they have to kill 2x as many to avoid being slaughtered back
9892
Post by: Flashman
I'm fairly confident that 10 wide to get a rank bonus will turn out to be nonsense. Horde armies will be buggered if this happens.
6559
Post by: GMMStudios
Kirasu wrote:Fighting in ranks wont help high elves at all.. Im assuming there is a LOT more to it than just "fight in ranks"
They always strike first, and have T3 with bad armor.. Sword masters do not want to fight in ranks because they have to kill 2x as many to avoid being slaughtered back
What? How?
Imagine under this system swordmasters at 6x3. Every model in that unit gets to fight. As it stands now the most swordmasters that can fight is 6ish. Depending on the frontage of the enem unit.
That is 54 great weapon attacks going first.
8272
Post by: FlammingGaunt
GMMStudios wrote:Kirasu wrote:Fighting in ranks wont help high elves at all.. Im assuming there is a LOT more to it than just "fight in ranks"
They always strike first, and have T3 with bad armor.. Sword masters do not want to fight in ranks because they have to kill 2x as many to avoid being slaughtered back
What? How?
Imagine under this system swordmasters at 6x3. Every model in that unit gets to fight. As it stands now the most swordmasters that can fight is 6ish. Depending on the frontage of the enem unit.
That is 54 great weapon attacks going first.
Ya thats going to wipe any unit or monster.
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
I'm not too keen on the 2 ranks can attack. Any unit with more than one attack just became ridiculously good at killing things. Corsairs with Serpent Standard in a 7x3 formation can push out 43 attacks. That's a bit much, TBH.
If all of this is true, 2 hand weapons will suddenly shoot up in popularity, methinks.
6559
Post by: GMMStudios
FlammingGaunt wrote:GMMStudios wrote:Kirasu wrote:Fighting in ranks wont help high elves at all.. Im assuming there is a LOT more to it than just "fight in ranks"
They always strike first, and have T3 with bad armor.. Sword masters do not want to fight in ranks because they have to kill 2x as many to avoid being slaughtered back
What? How?
Imagine under this system swordmasters at 6x3. Every model in that unit gets to fight. As it stands now the most swordmasters that can fight is 6ish. Depending on the frontage of the enem unit.
That is 54 great weapon attacks going first.
Ya thats going to wipe any unit or monster.
And its not much more expensive, if at all, than what people are already running.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
I like it! Ironguts HOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Ogres will be able to fight and win! Those 4x2 units of Ironguts w/Tyrant will make people cry!
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
@cryonicleech
My understanding is that subsequent ranks will only be able to contribute 1 attack per model. Not sure if this allows for frenzy (or other special rules) or not.
If anyone is interested I've done a roundup of rumours for 8th on warseer
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253845
3330
Post by: Kirasu
The second rank doesnt get to attack.. Its only if the first rank is WIPED out do they get to attack so says rumors and what ive heard from playtesters
So yeah, that means always strikes first is pretty pointless on highelves as theyll just get murdered by return attacks.. Reminds me of eldar in 5th ed 40k.. Hopefully there is more to it than that
Clarifications about 10 wide seems to be simply 10 "models".. Honestly, 10 wide is such a massive divergence from the game Im a bit surprised people believed that
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Kirasu wrote:Clarifications about 10 wide seems to be simply 10 "models"..
I want to see 400mm of Ogres ranked up!
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
To clarify some of the confusion about 10 models wide:
BoLS reported a while back on this, but imo did not spell it out correctly.
Avian has also said this is the case on warseer, but as in 'if a unit is 10 models wide, it may fight with one extra rank than is normal'. Not that units have to be 10 models wide to get rank bonuses for CR.
Harry has rubbished this entirely, and said there is only a 'Horde' rule.
This is all separate to the 2 ranks thing.
5544
Post by: sirisaacnuton
GMMStudios wrote:Also magic is rumored to be the first phase of the turn, in line with some of the wording of the new Beastmen spells.
That would certainly be a big change. For one thing, it would make 12" flare spells much less powerful, as you don't get to position first. I suppose this would help tone down that ability on an EotG, among other things. Sets Rot, Glorious Rot head and shoulders above other flares (even more so than it already is) as it'd be one of the few ones you couldn't get out of the way of easily.
It also seems like it would make movement manipulation spells more powerful (although maybe not, since they pretty much all allow you to charge if you successfully move)...it would certainly make movement spells different, anyway. And it would make the Beastmen's 0th spell go from just about worthless to pretty strong and deserving of a 7+ to cast.
Also, it would make anything that generates units a little better (since they would be able to move afterward, assumably).
2776
Post by: Reecius
Nice roundup Grimstonefire, that seems all fairly plausible.
5344
Post by: Shep
That was a nice round-up....
Well, I think i saw what i needed to be convinced that i'll be starting up fantasy again. Of course I'll wait until its confirmed. But the rumor about core only scoring and then only if it has a banner seals it.
If you are a fantasy player that doesn't have multi-edition 40k experience, then you should probably know that "troop scoring" more than any other change, saved 40k...
It doesn't slow the game down, its not going to make the game 'blockhammer'. People will incorrectly assume that the best armies will be packed with core and that won't be true, but what it will do is create a new urgency to protect your core units and to smash apart enemy core units rather than line your killers up against their killers and then play bloody knuckles for two hours.
Time to start socking away money it looks like...
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
If that round up is even half right I'll be dusting off my fantasy stuff and getting my sword and shield fix from WFB again. Moving core to scoring is huge. And I agree with Shep that this saved 40k. I had dropped 40k for the 6 months before 5th came out and only came back because of the changes. I'm hoping the same thing happens in Fantasy.
Sounds like Ogres are gonna be better! 6 Ogres that get a rank bonus is huge especially combined with extra rank fighting! Plus almost the entire army would be scoring anyway
Don't know how I feel about %'s. Dwarf Specials are a huge part of the army and you wouldn't be able to take even 2 regiments of guys 2250. Would also bone High Elves. This statement is based on 25%. If it's up to 50% specials I'm cool with it
Overall a good swing. A lot of stuff there that would encourage me to pick up my fantasy stuff again.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Interesting. If the magic rules are true it will certainly change the way my VC work.
The tournaments at Adepticon really left a sour taste in my mouth towards competitive WHFB, I hope 8th edition fixes all that.
11558
Post by: Uriels_Flame
I'm pretty sure the Tyrvigon spamming VC lists have been in need of a tune for a while.
I like playing Fantasy now at lower points to avoid all (most) of the non-sense people complain about.
I think Fantasy is just stale right now in general. Sometimes change for the sake of change is a good thing. I think we'll see with this.
23512
Post by: bd1085
Awesome collection of rumors. I especially like the the fact about magic going first.
These all seem like positive and constructive changes for WFB and is heading in the right direction.
2776
Post by: Reecius
Ozymandias wrote:Interesting. If the magic rules are true it will certainly change the way my VC work.
The tournaments at Adepticon really left a sour taste in my mouth towards competitive WHFB, I hope 8th edition fixes all that.
You and me both, Ozzy. My first game against Dwarves was fun, and the following two against Daemons were a joke.
If they can balance out the game a bit, I will finish painting my Woodies and enjoy switching back forth between systems. As it stands now, I think 40K is just far more enjoyable to play, but of course that is my personal opinion.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
Grimstonefire wrote:@cryonicleech
My understanding is that subsequent ranks will only be able to contribute 1 attack per model. Not sure if this allows for frenzy (or other special rules) or not.
If anyone is interested I've done a roundup of rumours for 8th on warseer
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253845
For those of us, like me who can't get warseer at work, could you please start up a rumour round up thread over here on DAKKA?
thanks.
GG
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Grimstonefire wrote:Note: This is only a summary of rumours that have been discussed in recent months. Rumours are subject to change. They are only 100% correct when they are facts.
I have tried to take out all the ones that have been quickly discredited, and a lot of this comes from reliable sources (who have been contradictory). Just so I am clear, none of what follows are rumours from me, they are all from other people.
Take with as much salt as is necessary, and don't blame me if any of it is wrong (I had to wade through around 200 pages of **** in french, german and english, and if I see people moaning about 25% again... *shudders* )
Note as well that none of the names of rules below are official, I just put something fun there for reference when I was collating.
Updating this: Much as I'd like to have the time and motivation to read all rumour discussions, PLEASE PM ME here with info, only if there is a significant rumour discussion from someone you guys really trust. I know there are snippets coming out in the general discussion here, and on many other forums. So rather than have to trawl across the web every few days, if you guys want this updated you will need to pm me with the info. I will try and keep ontop of things.
Note as well that unlike the other thread this is only for rumour discussion for the 8th edition rulebook itself. Not what armies are getting which releases (save that for the other thread).
More reliable rumours
* Army construction is moving back to percentages.
* Strength in Depth/ Stepping up
* Crush attack for larger creatures
* 40mm models moving to 3 model-wide ranks.
* Multiple objective driven scenarios in the rulebook
* Power dice aren’t generated by the number of spellcasters. The pool is decided by 2D6. Magic users add their magic level to the score rolled. All Wizards have a chance to generate more power dice.
* Archers fire in two ranks (not just High Elves but all archers)
Other rumours (and description of above)
These are all listed in no particular order.
ARMY SELECTION
* Army construction is moving back to percentages.
There have been not been strong rumours yet to support any specific % for all categories, however, 25% min core, 25% max special and 25% max rare seem to be undisputed.
* Slot system may or may not be dropped
* Categories for core/special/rare are remaining.
There have been no rumours yet of a system wide errata to specify which things are limited as a result.
MAGIC
NOTE: The magic rumours nobody seems to agree on, so rather than try and find what exactly the truth is I will just put here most of the theories
* Power dice aren’t generated by the number of spellcasters. The pool is decided by 2D6. Magic users add their magic level to the score rolled. All Wizards have a chance to generate more power dice. - Avian
* Giving irresistible force a downside
* If a wizard fails to cast (not counting dispels) twice in a row he miscasts
* Making miscasts harder to have but much more devastating.
* Dispel scroll only adding dispel dice (+2 dice to the dispel dice pool once per game). (edit - possibly speculation)
* Something rumoured is carrying over power dice, but holding too many could lead to a ‘magic backlash’.
* All the book Lores will have more supportive spells than they have now, and will all be getting a major overhaul. Each lore to get a mega spell.
* Dispel attempts to be made by specific wizards (presumable your casting level is beneficial for dispelling spells)
* A higher chance of miscast with multiple casters.
* If a wizard fail to cast a spell he can't cast other spells in the same phase.
COMBAT
NOTE: Trying to nail down what the truth is here is very hard. Once it is explained properly by someone who knows categorically what it is I will update this
Some of this is only my understanding of what has been discussed.
What is 100% clear is that models in the second rank will have some role to play in most combats.
* Strength in Depth. - Harry
2nd rank models in Infantry units will always fight with a single hand weapon attack, as long as it is 5 models minimum (or 3 for ogre sized). Note that this is regardless of what their profile attacks are, or what weapons they are carrying. Awaiting clarification on whether they get to use special rules in addition to this or not (frenzy, hatred and killing blow).
It has yet to be clarified exactly how models with spears get to use them.
No word on the impact for High Elves.
Cavalry still only fight in 1 rank.
* Stepping up. - Avian
Casualties are removed strictly from the rear ranks.
Basically how this works is that as long as you have sufficient models left in the unit, they can step up from anywhere to replace those 'killed' in the attacking rank. Only once there are not sufficient models left to replace those that are killed will the overall attacks of the unit drop.
Example:
You have a unit of 20 guys, 8 of which are in a position to fight and 12 of which are not. The enemy strikes first and kills 6 of your guys. As you now have 14 models you have sufficient numbers to step up and replace casualties, you still get to fight back with 8 models. In the next round of combat, the enemy kills a further 8 models. You now have only 6 models that get to fight back.
This is the same regardless of which side they are attacked on.
* Horde
Fight in 3 ranks if 10+ wide (4 with spears). - Avian.
Some benefit to fighting in large units - Harry
* One Save to ruin them all!
Models will only ever get one save (be it ward, mundane or magical armour). No word yet on whether regeneration is included. From Alessio himself!
* 40mm models
40mm models moving to 3 model-wide ranks. Ogre sized models are officially being put into their own size category (finally).
* Crush them!
Additional stomp/crush attacks for big infantry (ogres, trolls, etc) to represent them trampling lesser races underfoot. Bigger bonus for large creatures like giants.
* Fewer armour save modifiers
* Chariots
S7 autokill is gone. (edit: possible speculation)
MOVEMENT
* Measure the distance for the furthest moving model, and perform whatever manoeuvres you wish within that lax limitation. Command models will have some role to play in giving free manoeuvre as you move (Musician bonus similar to Ancient Battles?).
* Charging.
An added 'bonus' of getting an 'extra' +D6 or +D3 inches of movement to your move range (presumably the D6 or D3 decided by the category of warrior; infantry/cavalry/ogre sized).
* Heavy cavalry no longer able to march
- Heavy cavalry, defined as any cavalry with a 2+ or better save, cannot march. They can double their move when charging as normal, but they are not allowed to make a March move.
- "Medium and Fast cavalry remain the same".
SHOOTING
* As it happens to be the same rumour; fewer armour save modifiers.
* Archers fire in two ranks (not just High Elves but all archers). - Harry
PSYCHOLOGY
* Fear and Terror
When in combat, units or monsters with these rules gain 1 or 2 or 3 points of Static Combat modifier. This is added to the number of wounds caused by the Fear/Terror model/unit, as well as ranks, banners, etc. These bonuses may be cumulative between fear/terror causing things attacking a unit.
* Autobreaking from fear or terror is gone.
OTHER RULEBOOK CONTENTS
* Multiple objective driven scenarios in the rulebook (no kill points). See GW grand tournament and doubles scenarios.
* 15 or so missions in the new rulebook. 9 or 10 of the missions required Core units to capture objectives. Units must have banners to capture objectives. Several missions had multiple objectives
* Victory Conditions
Interestingly something I picked up from a post was that ‘victory conditions’ have been referred to in the last 3 books, not victory points.
* Terrain
Difficult terrain may be merged with very difficult and encompass more things (presumably more than just affecting movement).
Discredited rumours
Fight-until-someone-breaks
Lapping around
Weapons using the flame template or large or small blast templates automatically hit any model in contact rather than cause partial hits.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
@generalgrog
If we have the ability to lock our own threads and either reopen for editing, or edit a locked thread, it would be easy for me to just copy and paste the latest version.
Bear in mind though that what I am doing at the moment is only presenting a round up of most rumours. Not a roundup of facts. So whilst it would be interesting for you all to quiz my understanding of rumoured rules in an open thread, it would not be so much fun for me.
As an example, I have edited the sticky on warseer about 3 times today already, and I anticipate doing it again later, so it's easier for me to keep it locked.
If what I said at the beginning above is something that can be done here, one of the mods will have to let me know.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
Well, you can edit your original post by adding your copy paste to it.
I don't know if that is what you are saying you want to do or not?
GG
2889
Post by: Jin
Thanks for the rumor round-up, Grimstonefire (and Ozy for the repost)!
* Army construction is moving back to percentages.
There have been not been strong rumours yet to support any specific % for all categories, however, 25% min core, 25% max special and 25% max rare seem to be undisputed.
* Slot system may or may not be dropped
* Categories for core/special/rare are remaining.
There have been no rumours yet of a system wide errata to specify which things are limited as a result.
I'm curious to see how this will affect armies with less spectacular Core units.
MAGIC
I don't think I'm keen on the Random Power Dice pool and the failing to cast twice in a row => miscast is gonna be rough (especially if you roll like I do).
The last rumor seems interesting and could really change the dynamic of the Magic Phase, though I think in general, the armies that tend to go Magic Heavy don't really have difficulty successfully casting.
COMBAT & SHOOTING
The Stepping Up rule will definitely help out some of the cheaper/less elite infantry units. I can see it greatly affecting MSU armies being played. I would prefer seeing this rule instead of a variation of the Strength in Depth rule.
I'm curious as to what they mean by Fewer Save Modifiers - Possible rework of armor modifier table?
Archers firing in two ranks? About time. I wonder if this includes crossbows, however (would make DE RxBers even deadlier if so).
MOVEMENT
I'm not a fan of the extra variable movement. It's something I disliked about the 3rd/4th Ed. Fleet moves in 40k. I feel like adding that bit of "uncertainty" in movement in WFB is unnecessary.
The Heavy Cavalry rule is interesting (though they'll probably need to just explicitly create a Heavy Cavalry rule for certain units, just like they do with Fast Cavalry). Wonder what benefit they could give to counter-act the loss of speed.
Thank god they're toning down Fear/Terror.
I'm anxious to see harder-set rumors/rules.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Looks like theyre getting rid of hero hammer in the same way they got rid of it in 40k.. Removal of additional saves
Cant wait for the new edition as I pretty much will not play competitive WFB with the current ruleset (or I should say Daemonset). I really enjoy fantasy every week among friends, just not at tournaments
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
I will just point out here that I may soon be changing the rumour on fear/terror to be much less specific (just that they are changing it actually).
Infact if any of you guys want to go and quiz your local GW guys about the changes to fear/terror it would be very helpful.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Any word on those cavalry impact hits Grim? It's the one thing I want. I guess it could be the trade off for Heavy Cavalry losing their march move.
Step up makes sense. Got fed up of trying to work out which models had survived and could hit back.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
I have not read any new rumours of them.
At the moment I am only correcting rumours where possible.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
I would love some sweet things to happen to infantry blocks. Down with herohammer, long live only one save.
Though by no means should WHFB replace modifiers with AP values.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Interesting snippet, thanks to Mr. from 40k Online
Issue 365 of White Dwarf has a two-page spread which is essentially a poster saying "Warhammer" and "July".
...* waves at Mr. tryanotherone - Watcha lookin' at, son? *
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
Considering the inevitable questions that will arise, you'd hope the staffers would be given lots of information about the rules changes soon.
I think by this time next week we should know a bit more.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
From your lips to God's ears. Somehow I doubt GW will be that on top of it.
24489
Post by: Orky-Kowboy
Simply brilliant, hope they nerf Chaos Daemons.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
gorgon wrote:reds8n wrote: With regards to the ranks... well... what I heard was something that ran along the lines of a unit of infantry could attack with a number of ranks equal to half their frontage (rounding down), with certain beasts etc ( I assume things like ogres etc etc) counting as X number of normal infantry ( I want to say Unit Strength here but a lot of my fantasy knowwats aint all that). THusly a 10 wide block could attack with 5 ranks, an 8 wide block ( which I believe we see a few of in the Skaven book) could attack with 4 and a unit of 6 monsters.. like those 2 by 3 units of Minotaurs we've seen of late, could attack with both ranks. This could/would then be affected further by things like spears, other weapons, err... other things that matter in fantasy.
Huh! Yeah, that would explain the mino formations. I figure the Beastmen movement spell will be explained by moving magic to the first phase. Hmm...wonder just how much of a lift the Beasts are gonna get once 8th hits?
Yeah i was looking at that spell and wondering what the deal with it was. Currently it makes no sense to move d6+1 inches AFTER your movement phase, and NOT getting to charge units you come into contact with. IF magic goes first (which would be kind of neat) then that spell goes from being garbage, to being absolutely amazing!!!
I could see that making BM similar to TK. Where a second (sometimes first) turn charge could happen.
21678
Post by: Karon
That is exactly the reason I'm trying to find points for an extra bray-shaman in my beastmen list. It will be absolutely RIDICULOUS, imagine those stacking. I could get 2 of those off on one unit if I'm lucky, giving me a VERY big charge range.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Karon wrote:That is exactly the reason I'm trying to find points for an extra bray-shaman in my beastmen list. It will be absolutely RIDICULOUS, imagine those stacking. I could get 2 of those off on one unit if I'm lucky, giving me a VERY big charge range.
Thing is its all units in 6 inches, so with some decent placement and rolls, you could advance your line a few inches right from the start (which is great for beasts, they get eat up during shooting)
21678
Post by: Karon
Oh, reading fail on my part, but that makes it even more powerful.
4298
Post by: Spellbound
This is kind of good for chaos warriors, as it means my small infantry units without lots of static CR can take a couple casualties and still strike back with 5-6 models, as opposed to relying on one or two to do all the damage.
It also means I can step away from ALWAYS using hand weapon/shield when charged. Now I can take the risk of taking a few casualties, knowing that I'm going to still be able to attack with my entire "front" line of greatweapons or halberds. That's AWESOME! Reduction in armour save modifiers is probably something more simple than we're thinking - probably scaling it down by 1 [S4 doesn't modify, S5 is -1, S6 is -2 etc] so that armour makes more of a difference.
The random addition to charges is....weird. It kind of makes sense in that it's less of a cat and mouse game with people moving to just out of enemy charge range, afraid to advance forward. Now you don't really know, and can take the gamble that the enemy won't make it so that you can get it. It's like positioning yourself 16" away from a unit with fleet in 40k - it might get to charge you, but then again it might roll a 1-3 and fail.
Magic before movement helps nerf daemons a bit. You can position yourself behind terrain from some of the casters and be safe! They basically have to move into LOS of you, then wait until next turn, possibly taking a turn of fire before getting their chance to cause damage.
Fear/terror not auto-breaking is kind of nice too. Much as I like my VC, I've fought against enough ItP units to know that they can still do just fine without it. It also makes Fear and terror important for small units of chaos warriors when they get it from the Warshrine buffs - rarely will they outnumber the enemy, so now it just helps them win. Perfect! Also solves all the technicalities of "well yeah that character on the fear-causing mount causes fear, but HE'S not outnumbering me, his unit of infantry is, so it does nothing at all". Makes fear and terror-causing mounts very useful inside infantry blocks - see again Warriors of Chaos.
Monsters getting crush attacks is huge. Now ogres will get impact + crush + attacks, rank bonuses for 3 wide, still get to fight with models in the rear if models in front die [right? Monsters still get that?], and fear gives them a +1 to combat res instead. Not that they really had a problem outnumbering, but hey now it can work in their favor even with a small number of units.
I worry about the current badasses though. Bloodthirsters can chew through units as it is, causing a reliable 5-7 wounds. Enemy models being able to strike back isn't a big deal as they're hitting on 5's and wounding on 6's most of the time. Now they get additional combat res because they cause terror? I sense trouble on the horizon for them, but they'll be less able to break elite infantry [chaos warriors] who still get their WS5 S4-6 attacks. And without armour AND ward saves to protect them, that's pretty nice.
Also, since WoC armies have limited access to ward saves, the rules for fewer armour reduction modifiers makes them tougher than currently. If only they'd change killing blow!
This may make my WoC much more fun to play, as well as change just how elite infantry work in general. Definitely looking forward to it!
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Newsletter has just confirmed the July release of the new rulebook
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Yes, anyone on the mailing list got a mail about Rockethammer 8th Ed today.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Figured that whilst there will be a lot of people on the mailing list there still may be some interested parties that aren't
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
Damn you GW *shakes fist*
Just when I'd decided to cut my losses and give up on fantasy, they come out with something that sounds remarkably good - I may have to return my Dwarfs to battle (via the painting table...) after all
21678
Post by: Karon
I was on the mailing list...yet didn't get an email D:
19770
Post by: salamander man
I have a picture of the hammer on my email but it doesn't show up here. Sorry.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Strange how all major races are mentioned except for Lizardmen...
And the Slann muttered to themselves, "Yeah, don't mind us, we're only the most advanced civilisation on the planet, responsible for the fate of the entire world. But no, you guys have your fun, we'll be over here, making sure that the realm of chaos doesn't devour... Hello? Is anybody even bloody listening?"
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
Harry, your bucket full of dinosaurs is making strange noises again...
4661
Post by: Minsc
Spellbound wrote:Reduction in armour save modifiers is probably something more simple than we're thinking - probably scaling it down by 1 [S4 doesn't modify, S5 is -1, S6 is -2 etc] so that armour makes more of a difference.
The one reason I'm against this is that armor saves in WHFB have been creeping up to being almost akin to 40K (at least in close combat): You either have none, or you have a 3+ or better save. This is not going to do much to mitigate the issue.
Don't get me wrong, I like there being a difference between "heavy" and "light" infantry. But if these changes are made, you might as well make Combat Res against stuff like Saurus and Chaos Warriors (provided you have no attached characters) "You have static five, my turn to roll how many you lost by." If this is combined with the "Fight until someone breaks" rule, the game'll resemble something akin to Wifflebat Warfare with some armies fighting eachother.
21604
Post by: Killjoy00
I don't know why people keep bringing up "fight until someone breaks." It's been one of the discredited rumors for a while now.
8288
Post by: Rated G
The deal is, and this is going to sound funny, strength 4 is too powerful right now. As most things are toughness 3 max, str 4 allows you wound AND bypass armor much easier. By making str 5 the magic number for reducing armor, yet retaining the same damage chart, str 4 remains valuable without being excessive.
Not that I don't enjoy my Saurus demolishing the enemy.
3537
Post by: wildger
I heard a lot of rumors that army building is moving back to percentages, although the exact amount is not yet confirmed. I don't mind having rare down to 15%. When they say that characters are limited to 25%, do they mean heros only, heros and lords, or heros/lords with upgrade? I hope that it is not the latter. Otherwise, it would be harsh for Ogres and Forest Spirit armies.
14529
Post by: Erasoketa
wildger wrote: When they say that characters are limited to 25%, do they mean heros only, heros and lords, or heros/lords with upgrade? I hope that it is not the latter. Otherwise, it would be harsh for Ogres and Forest Spirit armies.
In the old times characters were a unique category, the division in heroes and lords came with the chart used today. Then, characters were limited up to 50%, including everything, heroes, unit champions, wizards, their equipment... Units were 25% minimum and all the others (war machines, monsters) were up to 25% each. Many units had 1+, 0-1 and the like.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Percentages will screw to many armies unless specials can be 50%. As long as that's the case I'm cool with it.
21353
Post by: aromasin
Definite release date for July
14529
Post by: Erasoketa
Hulksmash wrote:Percentages will screw to many armies unless specials can be 50%. As long as that's the case I'm cool with it.
IIRC, units were not divided in basic, special and unique. It was characters (up to 50%), units(25%+), war machines (up to 25%), monsters(up to 25%) and allies (up to 25%). Possibly war machines and monsters were the same category, up to 25% between both, but I don't remember it very well.
7625
Post by: Alex Kolodotschko
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=10100030a
Wow, the shot with the dark elf ships towards the end of the teaser video looks ace!
There's some pretty huge looking armies and bits of terrain in there too.
Now i'm getting excited!
26531
Post by: VikingScott
Erasoketa wrote:Hulksmash wrote:Percentages will screw to many armies unless specials can be 50%. As long as that's the case I'm cool with it.
IIRC, units were not divided in basic, special and unique. It was characters (up to 50%), units(25%+), war machines (up to 25%), monsters(up to 25%) and allies (up to 25%). Possibly war machines and monsters were the same category, up to 25% between both, but I don't remember it very well.
In the llizardmen book from i dont know when (copright on the back says 1996) that i own says:
Characters: up to 50%
regiments: 25% +
Monster 0 to 25%
war machines: none. as the army does not have any
allies: none. cannot include allied forces
last two is just the army though
I could look to see if me 1st/2nd ed dwarf book says if you guys want
14529
Post by: Erasoketa
I have my good old Wood Elves army book at home, I'll check it out later.
Lizarmen army book was one of the last to use the percentages. IIRC HE got a new army book, there was a new Chaos army book (the version where the army was divided in blocks and you had to choose one character and about the same points in units for each block - ala 500 points in one character and 500 in units, then another block) and few things more for that 5th? edition. There were several campaign supplements, I think few army book were renewed that time.
4298
Post by: Spellbound
That chaos vs empire battle is the most epic thing I've ever seen. I want to see that 2-page spread in the new book!
And I agree about the S4 bit. Since most infantry can be S4, it makes it so you never really get your armour saves that you're paying for. This way, there's a nice scale. Lots of things S3 that don't wound well. Lots of things that are S4 and wound better. Fewer things that are S5, and at that point you really start doing damage.
Look at the bright side. It also means most characters, sitting at S5 either by being S4 with a sword of might or halberd or by being S5 naturally, won't be as deadly by themselves.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
Something rumoured:
Every unit with 1 point of Initiative higher than the enemy "gains" ASF. (edit: maybe just Strike First).
Chargers get some sort of I bonus.
The actual ASF to be reworked.
8884
Post by: viney
This release is sounding good! Can't wait for it. Now the question for me is who is going to be my second army?
4661
Post by: Minsc
VikingScott wrote:
In the llizardmen book from i dont know when (copright on the back says 1996) that i own says:
Characters: up to 50%
regiments: 25% +
Monster 0 to 25%
war machines: none. as the army does not have any
allies: none. cannot include allied forces
last two is just the army though
I could look to see if me 1st/2nd ed dwarf book says if you guys want
It's pretty much the exact thing with O&G for '93. Differences being "regiments" are referred to as "Mobs", and both War Machines and Allies each have 0-25%.
14529
Post by: Erasoketa
Four categories in the 1996 Wood Elves book.
Characters 0-50%
Units 25%+
Monsters 0-25%
Allies 0-25%
Allies were Empire, Dwarfs, Bretonia and HE.
I love this book :_)
4298
Post by: Spellbound
Grimstonefire wrote:Something rumoured:
Every unit with 1 point of Initiative higher than the enemy "gains" ASF. (edit: maybe just Strike First).
Chargers get some sort of I bonus.
The actual ASF to be reworked.
So wait, they're making fantasy follow the 40k initiative system, with some sort of innate bonus for charging?
21678
Post by: Karon
Its rumored, sir.
Wouldn't like that one bit, the current system makes perfect sense, I'd hate to lose Strikes First for charging.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
If anyone is following it, I've updated the rumour sticky.
I haven't put the initiative thing on yet, as I'm waiting for someone in the know to comment on it.
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
I can't get access to warseer at work - any chance someone could copy the current round-up?
14529
Post by: Erasoketa
Chimera_Calvin wrote:I can't get access to warseer at work - any chance someone could copy the current round-up?
Ok
Grimstonefire@Warseer wrote:
Note: This is only a summary of rumours that have been discussed in recent months. Rumours are subject to change. They are only 100% correct when they are facts.
I have tried to take out all the ones that have been quickly discredited, and a lot of this comes from reliable sources (who have been contradictory). Just so I am clear, none of what follows are rumours from me, they are all from other people.
Take with as much salt as is necessary, and don't blame me if any of it is wrong (I had to wade through around 200 pages of **** in french, german and english, and if I see people moaning about 25% again... *shudders* )
Note as well that none of the names of rules below are official, I just put something fun there for reference when I was collating.
Updating this: Much as I'd like to have the time and motivation to read all rumour discussions, PLEASE PM ME here with info, only if there is a significant rumour discussion from someone you guys really trust. I know there are snippets coming out in the general discussion here, and on many other forums. So rather than have to trawl across the web every few days, if you guys want this updated you will need to pm me with the info. I will try and keep ontop of things.
Note as well that unlike the other thread this is only for rumour discussion for the 8th edition rulebook itself. Not what armies are getting which releases (save that for the other thread).
More reliable rumours
* Army construction is moving back to percentages.
* Strength in Depth/ Stepping up
* Crush attack for larger creatures
* 40mm models moving to 3 model-wide ranks.
* Multiple objective driven scenarios in the rulebook
* All non-english rulebooks are moving to inches.
* Power dice aren’t generated by the number of spellcasters. The pool is decided by 2D6. Magic users add their magic level to the score rolled. All Wizards have a chance to generate more power dice.
* All missile units fire in two ranks (not just High Elves)
* Autobreaking from fear or terror is gone.
Warhammer 8th Ed Rulebook to be released July 10th
Other rumours (and description of above)
These are all listed in no particular order.
ARMY SELECTION
* Army construction is moving back to percentages.
This is looking more like 25% max characters, 25% min core, 25% max special and 25% max rare (anonymous source, but trustworthy ) The 25% characters includes mounts.
* Slot system will not be dropped
* Categories for core/special/rare are remaining.
* There *may* be something to prevent spamming...
* There will be a system wide errata to clear up issues for each army.
MAGIC
NOTE: The magic rumours nobody seems to agree on, so rather than try and find what exactly the truth is I will just put here most of the theories
Edit: I've sorted out the ones that seem more likely, based on the info from an anonymous (trustworthy) source:
* Power dice aren’t generated by the number of spellcasters. The pool is decided by 2D6. Magic users add their magic level to the score rolled. All Wizards have a chance to generate more power dice. - Avian
* Giving irresistible force a downside
* Double 6 = a miscast
* Making miscasts much more devastating.
* Something rumoured is carrying over power dice, but holding too many could lead to a ‘magic backlash’. Wizard will recieve wounds or hits if he didn't use the excess power-dice (than originally allocated) at end of the turn.
* All the book Lores will have more supportive spells than they have now, and will all be getting a major overhaul. Each lore to get a mega spell.
* Spells can be chosen, not rolled for.
And the other rumours:
* If a wizard fails to cast (not counting dispels) twice in a row he miscasts
* Dispel scroll only adding dispel dice (+2 dice to the dispel dice pool once per game). (edit - possibly speculation)
* Dispel attempts to be made by specific wizards (presumable your casting level is beneficial for dispelling spells)
* A higher chance of miscast with multiple casters.
* If a wizard fail to cast a spell he can't cast other spells in the same phase.
COMBAT
NOTE: Trying to nail down what the truth is here is very hard. Once it is explained properly by someone who knows categorically what it is I will update this
Some of this is only my understanding of what has been discussed.
Edit:
There are basically 2 big new rules here; what I have named 'Stepping up', and a 'Horde' rule. - Harry.
What is 100% clear is that models in the second rank will have some role to play in most combats.
* Stepping up. – Harry/ Avian
Basically how this works is that the second rank get to fight only if the guy in front is killed. But they only get a single attack regardless of what their profile attacks are, or what weapons they are carrying* . It is not clear yet whether they get to use special rules in addition to this or not at all (frenzy, hatred and killing blow etc). Only once there are insufficient models left to replace those that are killed in the attacking rank will the overall attacks of the unit drop.
*It has yet to be clarified exactly how models with spears get to use them.
No word on the impact for High Elves.
Cavalry still only fight in 1 rank.
Example:
You have a unit of 20 guys, 5x4, 5 of which are in base contact with the enemy and 15 are not. The enemy strikes first and kills 6 of your guys. As you now have 14 models you have sufficient numbers to step up and replace casualties.
Because the front 2 ranks consists of 10 models overall, 6 of which are now dead, you still get to fight back with 4 models. In the next round of combat, the ranks are reset, so 5 models are in base contact, 5 in the second rank (capable of ‘stepping up’) and 4 in the third (remember, you still have 14 models). This time the enemy kills a further 8 models, leaving you with 2 models that get to fight back and a unit of 6.
This is the same regardless of which side they are attacked on.
* Horde
Fight in 3 ranks if 10+ wide (4 with spears). - Avian.
OR
Some benefit to fighting in large units, may automatically become stubborn beyond a certain unit size. – Harry - (edit) seemingly confirmed from another source).
* One Save to ruin them all!
Models will only ever get one save (be it ward, mundane or magical armour). No word yet on whether regeneration is included. From Alessio himself!
* 40mm models
40mm models moving to 3 model-wide ranks. Ogre sized models are officially being put into their own size category (finally).
* Crush them!
Additional stomp/crush attacks for big infantry (ogres, trolls, etc) to represent them trampling lesser races underfoot. Bigger bonus for large creatures like giants. These are not impact hits. (edit: these could be overrun hits)
* Fewer armour save modifiers
* Chariots
S7 autokill is gone. (edit: possibly not speculation)
MOVEMENT
* Measure the distance for the furthest moving model, and perform whatever manoeuvres you wish within that lax limitation. Command models will have some role to play in giving free manoeuvre as you move (Musician bonus similar to Ancient Battles?).
* Charging.
An added 'bonus' of getting an 'extra' +D6 or +D3 inches of movement to your move range (presumably the D6 or D3 decided by the category of warrior; infantry/cavalry/ogre sized).
* Heavy cavalry no longer able to march
- Heavy cavalry, defined as any cavalry with a 2+ or better save, cannot march. They can double their move when charging as normal, but they are not allowed to make a March move.
- "Medium and Fast cavalry remain the same".
SHOOTING
* As it happens to be the same rumour; fewer armour save modifiers.
* Missile units fire in two ranks (not just High Elves). - Harry & someone else.
PSYCHOLOGY
* Fear and Terror
When in combat, units or monsters with these rules gain 1 or 2 or 3 points of Static Combat modifier. This is added to the number of wounds caused by the Fear/Terror model/unit, as well as ranks, banners, etc. These bonuses may be cumulative between fear/terror causing things attacking a unit. (edit: Some changes are happening to fear and terror, but they are much simpler than this)
* Autobreaking from fear or terror is gone.
OTHER RULEBOOK CONTENTS
* Multiple objective driven scenarios in the rulebook (no kill points). See GW grand tournament and doubles scenarios.
* 15 or so missions in the new rulebook. 9 or 10 of the missions required Core units to capture objectives. Units must have banners to capture objectives. Several missions had multiple objectives
* Victory Conditions
Interestingly something I picked up from a post was that ‘victory conditions’ have been referred to in the last 3 books, not victory points.
* Terrain
Difficult terrain may be merged with very difficult and encompass more things (presumably more than just affecting movement).
Discredited rumours
Fight-until-someone-breaks
Lapping around
Weapons using the flame template or large or small blast templates automatically hit any model in contact rather than cause partial hits.
__________________
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
Wow - thanks! didn't expect quite that much detail!!
12030
Post by: Demogerg
Interesting changes. I stopped playing WHFB about 2 years ago because I moved and my current area has almost no fantasy players, but with the new edition I can probly convince some of my 40k buddies to pick it up.
it'll be fun to see how all these changes effect my Vampire Counts.
25% characters REALLY hurts VC, seeing as they are usually closer 50% characters.
fear/outnumber no longer autobreaking is a huge blow, but to replace it with a static CR modifier seems to make a bit more sense from a balance perspective.
Black Knights becoming heavy cavalry when given barding will severly slow them down, so I suspect I'll be fielding them without barding from now on.
And I suspect I'll be fielding huge blocks of zombies now too, 60+ probably wont be uncommon. + a bunch of CR for rank bonuses, 3 ranks fighting, outnumbering, banner, fear, should be pretty ace actually.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Don't worry too much about the characters. If the %s are anything like they used to be, the cap was 50% for Characters, not 25%.
24035
Post by: Ostrakon
* Horde
Fight in 3 ranks if 10+ wide (4 with spears). - Avian.
That sounds pretty fun, but since I don't know WFB rules very well, only the 5 or so in base contact per rank can actually fight, right?
So if I have 10x3 skaven charging a 5x? unit of something, I still only get to attack with about 15 of them?
14529
Post by: Erasoketa
Ostrakon wrote:* Horde
Fight in 3 ranks if 10+ wide (4 with spears). - Avian.
That sounds pretty fun, but since I don't know WFB rules very well, only the 5 or so in base contact per rank can actually fight, right?
So if I have 10x3 skaven charging a 5x? unit of something, I still only get to attack with about 15 of them?
Yes, I guess you would attack with 15. But your unit might do 30 attacks depending on the circumstances (i.e., the enemy units size).
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Here three more rumour collections from supposedly GW sources in Spain, again collected and translated by Hoarmurel over at Warseer:
Utterly confirmed by GW Spain to E-minis (spanish biggest online miniature shop)
- Measurement in inches (only for Spain)
- Unit strength concept is gone.
- Fighting by initiative, like W40k.
- Magic is going to be much more powerful, but can “kill” the wizards. The miscasting table is completely changed.
- The rulebook (550 pages) has a lot of background about the old World and the new lands, new background.
- Shooting units on bended knee can fire with 2 rows.
- No limits in points to each unit class: Characters, Core, Special, Rare. You only have to keep the percentage for each class, i don’t know the exact amount yet.
- GW tournaments will be with armies of 3000 pts, I’m 99% sure of this.
- Fighting in close combat with 2 or more rows for all units. No details.
- Changes in some weapons descriptions, like pikes…
- The concept of the combat row wil change pretty much. I’ll detail this in few time.
- Terrain! A lot of class of games (like the missions of 40k), more important “golf courses” gone, because the table must have 1D6+2 (or perhaps +4, i can’t remember). The terrain elements will have differents effects inside and around them.
Supposedly from a GW manager to an Indy shop owner:
1.- Re-printing of ALL the Warhammer army books throughout a year. (only in Spain)
2.- The most powerful magic ever (with great changes)
3.- Mandatory in all the games: 1D6 + 4 terrain elements
4.- Games of 3000 pts.
5.- CC Fight in 2 rows (it seems all the units)
6.- Infantry with Spears: CC with 3 rows
7.- High Elves spearmen: CC with 5 rows (!!!)
8.- Close combat is resolved in initiative order
9.- Reduced psychology (no more details)
10.- Army list based in percentages. This will entail some armies to take 4 or more heros, whilst they don’t exceed the point percentage.
11.- All the measurement in inches (interest only Spain)
12.- Revamp of armies like Ogre Kingdoms
13.- Terrain subject: The gameboard will be plenty of terrain elements. Those elements will not affect so much the movement but will affect fleeing units, like in the War of the Ring game.
14.- Different class of missions.
Supposedly from a GW email to Indy shops:
Rules-wise, it can be summarize in one sentence: “More units, more magic, more characters, with this new edition the Warhammer battles will grow up, and it becomes much much bigger.
The new rulebook will not cancel any book or expansion.
The battle for the Skull pass will be withdrawn from shops soon, so buy it while you can.
Another tidbit from an email to E-minis, a big miniature online store in Spain:
Charges will have a random value added:
Infantry: Will charge their movement + 1D6 inches
Cavalry: Will charge their movement + 2D6 inches
This does not apply to the flying units.
The D6 could be not exactly like that, but otherwise is confirmed 99%.
Another detail: We cannot tell you the new army to be released, only thing i can say is that it will be released in some moment between August and October.
Expect the summer army to be 40k.
2889
Post by: Jin
Sigh. I actually dislike a lot of those rules. We'll see how it goes.
Not keen on the 40k Initiative system.
Interesting that they require more 5-10 pieces of terrain.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Unless there's some severe changes to how victory is determined or hard 25% caps on characters these sound pretty crummy. There's almost no way to beat a Bloodthirster at all since he effectively has ASF against most units and characters under the the 40k style initiative system. Gonna be pretty funny when a unit of knights charges in and is murdered before they have a change to do any attacks. I know the obvious answer is to shoot it, but a decent amount of armies have no reasonable options for that so is that really acceptable?
I also hope that if they are going to reduce psychology effects they are going to null any "immune to psychology" rules although it sounds like leadership checks are going to change a lot in general.
3537
Post by: wildger
"Army list based in percentages. This will entail some armies to take 4 or more heros, whilst they don’t exceed the point percentage."
I just don't see how it can be done with a 25% cap.
241
Post by: Ahtman
This might actually get me back into Fantasy Battles.
2700
Post by: dietrich
Jin wrote:Interesting that they require more 5-10 pieces of terrain.
Conspiracy mode. Of course they want more terrain, they make kits for that.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Hmm, 3000 points? Looks kind of like a money grab to me, thats what, an extra 1000 points over regular tournament size now?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
A lot of tournaments were 2250, but going to 3000 is a big jump. WFB scalable FOC, we hardly knew ye!
2889
Post by: Jin
dietrich wrote:Jin wrote:Interesting that they require more 5-10 pieces of terrain.
Conspiracy mode. Of course they want more terrain, they make kits for that.
Point. Though most people I know scratch build theirs (or just build using model train terrain - much cheaper). I was more interested in that it encourages for more interesting games.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Ratbarf wrote:Hmm, 3000 points? Looks kind of like a money grab to me, thats what, an extra 1000 points over regular tournament size now?
This also has me worried. It sounds like the new system is going to be geared around a lot of models and stuff getting killed really fast similar to WotR. However I REALLY don't want to have to spend the time to put out 3000 points worth of models just to have them blasted off the table in two turns.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Pretty soon the rules will say that games of Warhammer can only be played on RoB Boards.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Ixquic wrote:Ratbarf wrote:Hmm, 3000 points? Looks kind of like a money grab to me, thats what, an extra 1000 points over regular tournament size now?
This also has me worried. It sounds like the new system is going to be geared around a lot of models and stuff getting killed really fast similar to WotR. However I REALLY don't want to have to spend the time to put out 3000 points worth of models just to have them blasted off the table in two turns.
That is what fillers are for! If you're on 20mm bases, you buy 40mm monster bases and make 4:1 fillers.
Personally, if it goes like that, I'll not be surprised to see people field Chariot and Giant-base fillers in their large blocks.
123
Post by: Alpharius
3000 points?
I guess we knew this was coming - selling miniatures is what it is all about.
40K Style Initiative for HTH?
Ugh - no.
Random Charge distances?
Horrible idea!
Hopefully reality is something far from these things!
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Always used 3k armies back in 3rd ed. Big bloody armies with lots of outflanking units. It helped tone down the heroes and super elites.
4661
Post by: Minsc
Going over one at a time.
Kroothawk wrote:Utterly confirmed by GW Spain to E-minis (spanish biggest online miniature shop)
- Measurement in inches (only for Spain)
No real difference to me (US player).
- Unit strength concept is gone.
An odd change for me, with several implications if true: Removal of outnumber, cavalry are meant to be fielded in smaller units, flanking is either going to be made easier or harder (How would flanking to negate ranks work if you have no US requirement?), and so on. Overall, I'm not liking it, but for the most part this doesn't exactly look game breaking beyond meaning people who field stuff like Manticore or Dragon-lords are no longer going to be able to solo regiments as readily.
- Fighting by initiative, like W40k.
This one is big. Very, very big for me, anyways. I play Orcs & Goblins. With this, I've pretty much been told "I lose". WS3 / 4 is a joke against any combat unit worth its name in WHFB, and T4 / 6+ save is even moreso meaning I might as well - even with the "step up" just pick up the unit. This rule is going to be horrendous against armies that have low initiatives but don't have an armor save up the wazoo, but I figure for the most part it's only game-breaking for certain armies (Skaven are likely going to be no worse off against Empire, for instance).
- Magic is going to be much more powerful, but can “kill” the wizards. The miscasting table is completely changed.
Could be a game-breaker, won't know until I see the rules. Only thing I dread is that it means O&G become "1-6: Wizard blows up and army takes 3D6 hits a unit" or something like that. O&G have a habit of being given worse miscast tables than other armies, and if this trend goes into 8th then that's a strong discourager from fielding mages as anything other than scroll caddies / staff of sorcery polishers.
- The rulebook (550 pages) has a lot of background about the old World and the new lands, new background.
Can't complain here.
- Shooting units on bended knee can fire with 2 rows.
On bended knee? As in, those models bending can get extra shots, or is there some new rule that's being hinted at here?
- No limits in points to each unit class: Characters, Core, Special, Rare. You only have to keep the percentage for each class, i don’t know the exact amount yet.
Don't quite understand this, but see the Magic "Could be gamebreaker" - some lists are going to be effected much moreso than others.
- GW tournaments will be with armies of 3000 pts, I’m 99% sure of this.
Beyond meaning more $$$ to play (if only because of the need for more models), this doesn't look too bad to me. I don't play the tourney scene, though, so I can't properly judge here.
- Fighting in close combat with 2 or more rows for all units. No details.
Mixed with the initiative thing, this sorta sounds like it's going to start becoming a 40K-lite. This rumor, depending on the details, is mixed for me, but as always it could be a game-breaker.
- Changes in some weapons descriptions, like pikes…
Does this mean we'll be seeing a Pike return? I don't think there's any army right now that can use them outside Dogs of War, and they haven't exactly been given much love. Or is the Spanish translation for Pike akin to stuff like Spears, Halberds, and so on?
- The concept of the combat row wil change pretty much. I’ll detail this in few time.
Need to know more before I can comment.
- Terrain! A lot of class of games (like the missions of 40k), more important “golf courses” gone, because the table must have 1D6+2 (or perhaps +4, i can’t remember). The terrain elements will have differents effects inside and around them.
Terrain effect would have to be changed, or terrain feature sizes would need to drop. Of course they start dropping the number of skirmisher armies whilst increasing the amount of terrain pieces. D6+4 would be overkill, so I can only assume that the number increases with table sizes (D3+2 for 4x4, D6+2 for 4x6, D6+4 for greater sizes?).
1.- Re-printing of ALL the Warhammer army books throughout a year. (only in Spain)
I apologize for my earlier comment in regard to the reprint here.
2.- The most powerful magic ever (with great changes)
Though in no way related to 8th, $10 says Spirit Totem goes poof / decreases in DD provided because of this statement.
3.- Mandatory in all the games: 1D6 + 4 terrain elements
That... that's not right. I mean, not right at all. Unless Terrain does practically nothing now, in which case why would you want it - this rule just clusters up everything outside a board greater than 6x6 in size.
4.- Games of 3000 pts.
I'm starting to disbelieve a good amount of these rules. This isn't sounding like WHFB. This is sounding like WHFB: Apocalypse. Extra terrain, bigger game sizes, percentages, extra attacks and spell power, it just doesn't sound like a new WHFB edition.
5.- CC Fight in 2 rows (it seems all the units)
6.- Infantry with Spears: CC with 3 rows
7.- High Elves spearmen: CC with 5 rows (!!!)
I'm not exactly enjoying the number of attacks represented in this. See the " WHFB Apocalypse" comment.
8.- Close combat is resolved in initiative order
See my comment on this earlier in my post.
9.- Reduced psychology (no more details)
40K 40K 40K... this is sounding more and more like " WH40K - Spears and Bows edition" than " WHFB - 8th Edition" (40Ker or not, you have to admit that compared to WHFB 40K's leadership is a joke more often than not).
10.- Army list based in percentages. This will entail some armies to take 4 or more heros, whilst they don’t exceed the point percentage.
Covered above. This is balancing / negligible at times (Would anyone complain about another WS4 S & T4 Goblin Big Boss in a 2K point game?), but in several lists this could prove a game-breaker or require a complete overhaul.
12.- Revamp of armies like Ogre Kingdoms
Need more info to comment.
13.- Terrain subject: The gameboard will be plenty of terrain elements. Those elements will not affect so much the movement but will affect fleeing units, like in the War of the Ring game.
I'm still getting more and more a "Less WHFB more 40K" image from this - to be honest I've thought bare-minimal about WotR when seeing these rumors. Are we sure that 5th Edition 40K wasn't a playtesting for 8th Edition, not WotR?
Rules-wise, it can be summarize in one sentence: “More units, more magic, more characters, with this new edition the Warhammer battles will grow up, and it becomes much much bigger.
I can see this pushing several people out of the hobby. Specifically, those who like small, elite, characterful armies. Not exactly a gamebreaker, but it will drive some people away (and, likely, some into the hobby in turn).
The new rulebook will not cancel any book or expansion.
Sounds more and more to me like a Supplement and not Rulebook.
Charges will have a random value added:
Infantry: Will charge their movement + 1D6 inches
Cavalry: Will charge their movement + 2D6 inches
This I'm wary about, as it directly contradicts other ones unless we have specific interpretations (Cavalry can possibly get a 30" charge as 18" from M9 doubled plus 2D6"?). I do not like the development of relying against randomness, but I'm sure GW's going to have some counter-measure in-game (likely unit command).
I'm, pretty much undividedly, less than amused by these rules. I'll still play, as I don't have the money or other hobbies ATM to just give up some $2000+ and 9 years of endeavors just because of a crummy rule set, but it's not exactly keeping me in high spirits. To be quite frank, if many of these rumors are true my store's probably going to turn undividedly to 40K as the Fantasy players are already phasing out whilst the WotR players vanished about three months after the release.
2889
Post by: Jin
Minsc, I'm pretty much in concordance with you on all those points.
There are way too many things in here that are pushing WFB to be like 40k - pretty much all the things that I hated about 40k and why I switched over to Fantasy.
I am not wild about throwing a bucket of dice at every combat - while I understand that it helps average out rolls better, it slows the game down to constantly throw that many dice every round.
I think they went the wrong direction with Magic completely (assuming all these rumors are right).
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Have to agree with Minsc. These rule changes, if rumours are correct, would probably be the death knell for WFB, in my mind. It sounds more like additional rules for an Apocalypse type expansion. If we cast our minds back to to the 6th edition hardback, there were lots of extra stuff for skirmish games and siege rules. Maybe the new rules that are being bandied around in this 550 page + rulebook are just that, and are not the radical change that people are talking about. The magic stuff sounds good, but if the talk about Initiative is true, then I'll be looking for something else to spend my time and money on.
I've always been a fan of making my own terrain so a focus on terrain is always welcome, but the 3000 points idea is not so welcome. I've got the time and money for such an enterprise, but the people I game against do not, and in all likelyhood will jump ship to 40K as a result of this. There is nothing worse than seeing geeks like us get into a lather about all this
666
Post by: Necros
well.... frak :(
is the 25% max for heroes gonna be true? does this mean I can't do my 2250 lizard list with 2 engines of the gods and a carasaur? :( Glad I know now while I'm in the middle of building my 2nd steg, I can make him normal and not have the engine I guess...
hmm wait.. I can't even do the carnasaur & 1 engine :( well, maybe if I do a 4000 pt game..... yuck.
I got them just so that I didn't have to have a bazillion little skinks all over the place, guess GW has bigger plans for my wallet.
24020
Post by: vitki
Minsc wrote:Going over one at a time.
Kroothawk wrote:Utterly confirmed by GW Spain to E-minis (spanish biggest online miniature shop)
- Measurement in inches (only for Spain)
No real difference to me (US player).
Nope, you've got this one wrong. Spain is moving over to inches and the rest of the world is moving to furlongs.
26407
Post by: Bloodwin
I'm not sure what to make of these 'rumours' as I've not been back in the hobby long and 10 years ago there wasn't much on the net. I'm not so fussed about 3000 pts as it varies wildly between high points cost armies like Chaos/Dwarves and horde armies like Goblins/Skaven. If you go to 2000 pts to make the little guys manageable then the more expensive point cost armies can get very small very quick. Having said that I wouldn't be surprised to see an Apocalypse style supplement for Fantasy and I would also like to see a kill team/skirmish style game for us terminal floaters who want to get a bit of everything. That might get covered by the missions though. I'm looking forward to the new hardback. I'll reserve judgement on the big box until I see the models. I don't like what they did to the Dwarves with those horrible plastics making it into the army boxes. I'd rather see a 40K type affair where the box has serviceable figs and then the usual releases sort out decent troops etc. I think the Skaven will be 'ok' as they've just been redone I hope the High elves don't suffer too badly though. Once I get the big book I'll probably just get a few metal Dwarves and get them sorted while waiting for a hopeful redesign.
Also don't forget esp with the way they've been going with 40K you don't have to stick to the rules on Army lists etc. I see quite a lot of tournament and armchair generals who do lots of theory crafting. I prefer a more narrative game so I don't mind a few extra characters.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
It just seems weird. A lot of those rules (CRAAAAZY magic, little focus on psychology effects, variable charge distances, simplified combats, measuring just part of the base for easy unit movement) are directly taken from WotR. However unless there's some place that loves it, WotR is a terrible game and a horrible failure. I never see people play it in GW stores let alone independent hobby shops. Are they really that confident that these are going to work after the WotR book was horribly broken wide open to the point where there are lists that are literally unbeatable due to lazy design?
21678
Post by: Karon
I'm getting really worried, a lot of these rules are really terrible, like the 40k initiative system, the current WHFB system is part of what made me come over to WHFB!
3000 points? So my 2250 points of miniatures (easily $300) isn't going to be eligible for tournaments anymore? What the feth?
So these rules are supposed to completely gimp new players, amirite?
I shouldn't have even posted this, as Jin and I obviously think the exact same on the majority if not all of these issues.
God damnit, GW, what are you doing? I like larger battles, but not when your products are terribly expensive! Come on!
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Jin wrote:Minsc, I'm pretty much in concordance with you on all those points.
There are way too many things in here that are pushing WFB to be like 40k - pretty much all the things that I hated about 40k and why I switched over to Fantasy.
I am not wild about throwing a bucket of dice at every combat - while I understand that it helps average out rolls better, it slows the game down to constantly throw that many dice every round.
I think they went the wrong direction with Magic completely (assuming all these rumors are right).
Fantasy already plays much slower than 40k.. Even if you didnt roll any dice in WFB youd have a slower game, so I doubt "more dice" will slow it down at all.. The time spent on dice first involves determining # dice need to be rolled; pick up dice; roll dice; count results. Regardless if its 2 dice or 20 you have to go through the motion.. I can roll a handful and count the rolls in a few seconds.. maybe 2 seconds more if its a lot of dice. Not exactly a time consumer there
Now, if GW can write WFB rules to stop arguments due to the movement phase and the general slowness of the CC phase then you'll see a speed improvement
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Karon: GW is pay to play. It's not a cheap play game. If you can't afford it, that's too bad.
And really, $300 is nothing from a GW standpoint. I've got several times that spent on non-40k GW stuff, which is less than my 40k stuff.
When you're talking about $3k being nuked, that'll get people to sit up and listen.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
I am extremely sceptical about this newest bunch of rumours.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Kirasu wrote:Fantasy already plays much slower than 40k.. Even if you didnt roll any dice in WFB youd have a slower game, so I doubt "more dice" will slow it down at all.. The time spent on dice first involves determining # dice need to be rolled; pick up dice; roll dice; count results. Regardless if its 2 dice or 20 you have to go through the motion.. I can roll a handful and count the rolls in a few seconds.. maybe 2 seconds more if its a lot of dice. Not exactly a time consumer there
Now, if GW can write WFB rules to stop arguments due to the movement phase and the general slowness of the CC phase then you'll see a speed improvement
I think GW will be tuning 8th to get players to spend time where GW thinks the game is interesting, like model's eye view in 40k. MEV was a deliberate slowdown of 40k added to 5E, and a rules simplification removing Magic Cylinder debates at the same time.
That is, GW already has a specific game time in mind, with a specific proportion spent moving, Magic, shooting, fighting.
21678
Post by: Karon
Trust me, I've spent a lot more than $300 on GW....much, much more.
I was just saying, thats going to gimp a lot of new players, from a GW standpoint, thats bad. Its expensive as is, but causing them to 750 more points on to be tourny legal is kind of a bad business decision in my mind.
666
Post by: Necros
You don't HAVE to play 3000 pt games. Just like you don't have to play 2250 pt games or 2000 or 1850. if they start doing 3000 pt tournaments.... how many brand new players are gonna be fighting for a free ticket to vegas in a month? probably not too many.
for me, 3k is no biggie as thats the level I like to play at anyway, but I'm just as happy to play a 500 pt game too.
10692
Post by: cablecing
If charging does not allow liz to go first in CC im going to completely swap to my DE's
however in a 2k game here comes 4 /5 priests
26926
Post by: Xyz'r'Xaz'r'Xuz
To borrow a baseball phrase, 3k points for a WoC player is the sweet spot of our bat...
21678
Post by: Karon
Actually, I got the impression of 3k being the norm for tournaments, like how your local GW runs tournaments, it's normally around 2k, 2250, or 2500.
That's kind of what I was thinking.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
Something I like about they way they have updated the rules is that there will be a lot more kills now on both sides. So if you want to play a game the same size as before it will be a lot quicker. If you want a longer game you have to buy more models (or play really slowly).
But that part at least is the best of both worlds imo.
Incidently, if anyone is trying to keep track of the current rumour discussions it's best to check the sticky daily. Today has just been insane, I've had around 14 pms over on warseer and updated the sticky at least 4 times. Some days I don't edit it at all, but others I do a lot.
20297
Post by: ImperialTard
SPECULATION: Warhammer trailer video was totally pointless and a huge let-down.
123
Post by: Alpharius
ImperialTard wrote:SPECULATION: Warhammer trailer video was totally pointless and a huge let-down.
Not sure how much speculation that statement contained...
Facts, maybe... But then, teaser trailers rarely satisfy!
7926
Post by: youbedead
Xyz'r'Xaz'r'Xuz wrote:To borrow a baseball phrase, 3k points for a WoC player is the sweet spot of our bat...
If thes are true then WoC will be one of the best armies in the game with awesome Armour and in. 5 we would be striking first. Khorne warriors with duel hand weapon at 6 wide and two ranks get to fight {drool} thats 49 attacks
2889
Post by: Jin
@Kirasu - YMMV.
In my personal experience, I've always had faster games with WFB than with 40k. The WFB Movement phase was (to me) a nice change of pace compared to 40k. Never got bogged down in any big arguments in the movement phase and always had CC resolved pretty readily. I've had far worse (and more frequent) arguments in my games of 40k than I have in my relatively brief tenure playing WFB.
While I'll concede that my point about dice throwing was somewhat hyperbolic, I always got fed up when I had to throw more and more dice per Close Combat in 40k. At a certain point, it felt like the victory was given to whomever could manage to fit more dice on the table at any given moment. I was not a fan of it, and appreciated the (IMO) quicker combat resolution of WFB. Looks like that's going to change.
Again, this is just my personal sentiment on the topic. Clearly we've had different experiences with regard to these points which skew our respective positions accordingly.
6174
Post by: The Crippler
Edit: Double post
23668
Post by: sevend3f
If miscasting is indeed to be serious business, here comes turn one "Pandemonium!"
8+ to cast. enemy spell-casters miscast on doubles!
( WTF with WoC power boost?)
320
Post by: Platuan4th
sevend3f wrote:If miscasting is indeed to be serious business, here comes turn one "Pandemonium!"
8+ to cast. enemy spell-casters miscast on doubles!
( WTF with WoC power boost?)
Meh. The Dark Elves can do that with a ring. No need to cast.
12471
Post by: Buttlerthepug
Platuan4th wrote:sevend3f wrote:If miscasting is indeed to be serious business, here comes turn one "Pandemonium!"
8+ to cast. enemy spell-casters miscast on doubles!
( WTF with WoC power boost?)
Meh. The Dark Elves can do that with a ring. No need to cast.
Theres also black tounge, dont forget! And if the miscast table is really that brutal... imagine it with infernal puppet
17155
Post by: bhsman
ImperialTard wrote:SPECULATION: Warhammer trailer video was totally pointless and a huge let-down.
AFFIRMATION: This post was totally pointless and a huge let-down.
Honestly, it's an entirely new edition for a game, so something like changing rules probably wouldn't translate well into a visual medium, so it's not surprising that it's a letdown. Wait a month for stuff to leak.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Apparently thery are peeing themselves with excitement at GW so the leaks have already started
16671
Post by: Hjoey75
We all know Fantasy is already better then 40k because it is not ok everyone move 6 inches. Fire gun with no - because they can move in shoot perfect accuracy as if standing still.While combat is who has better troops because people do not get scared when out number 40 to 1 but as long as I kill a guy you take ld test.
40k is so bad that why I dont like playing it as much it is babys first tabletop.Why I play Fantasy because it so much more with every thing.
7801
Post by: Mick A
It makes good business sense to make Warhammer more like 40k. 40k is the biggest seller of the two so if you make Warhammer similar your more likely to entice the 40k players across to play both.
As for losing current Warhammer players, let's be honest, we whinge, we moan, but we still carry on playing and buying...
Mick
12471
Post by: Buttlerthepug
Mick A wrote:It makes good business sense to make Warhammer more like 40k. 40k is the biggest seller of the two so if you make Warhammer similar your more likely to entice the 40k players across to play both.
As for losing current Warhammer players, let's be honest, we whinge, we moan, but we still carry on playing and buying...
Mick
Then what would be the point of two different game systems if they were both the same?
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
The thing that's interesting me the most is the % cap on characters.
One of the reasons why they switched from percentages to slots when they went from WFB5 to WFB6 was because allowing 50% of your points to be spent on characters was what created Herohammer. The move was to try and re-establish unit vs unit combat.
More recent army books with their attendent codex creep have now put us in the position of having a weird cross between Herohammer and Deathstarhammer. It seems to me that many of these changes are an attempt to rectify this and get back (again) to unit vs unit being the focus.
If GW set a tight limit on characters (of the order of the 25% that has been talked about) then relying on heroes will be difficult if not impossible because you won't be able to tool them up enough.
The changes in the way combat works and the hike in points value for a standard game look like they are an attempt to make big units more valuable in comparison to death stars. DS units will still exist, obviously (notably for elite armies like WoC) but should be more vulnerable to attrition - especially when people start taking large missile units.
Finally, the points limit on characters will effect the magic phase just as much as the changes to the magic phase. Not having the points to spend on uber-wizards or just lots of spellcasters will mean fewer spells zipping about the place and if magic really is becoming more dangerous for the casters people will think more carefully before they unleash the mega-spell.
Now, all of this is conjecture and could be blown away by an anouncement that characters are going back to the old <50% rule. If they do, combined with 3000pt games, I'm not going to reinvest - I don't fancy playing War(machine)hammer...
7801
Post by: Mick A
Buttlerthepug wrote:Mick A wrote:It makes good business sense to make Warhammer more like 40k. 40k is the biggest seller of the two so if you make Warhammer similar your more likely to entice the 40k players across to play both.
As for losing current Warhammer players, let's be honest, we whinge, we moan, but we still carry on playing and buying...
Mick
Then what would be the point of two different game systems if they were both the same?
Possibly because one is fantasy and the other is sci-fi...?
And even if they were identical (which will never happen) by calling one Warhammer Fantasy and another Warhammer 40,000 people will actually buy both making them more profit.
If people don't like the changes in the new edition why play that one? Unless your a tournie player nothing is stopping you from still playing the current edition (or even earlier ones, I actually prefer 3rd edition myself...).
Mick
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Not sure Mick- would a lot more kids go over to FB?
7801
Post by: Mick A
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Not sure Mick- would a lot more kids go over to FB?
I think they have more chance of getting 40k players to try FB if its a lot closer to 40k than it is now. I personally prefer 40k as I really don't like the current FB edition (hence playing 3rd when I do play FB) but the more I read about the new edition the more interesting it sounds to me...
Mick
17836
Post by: Ixquic
40K players that don't play Fantasy aren't going to suddenly switch over since some of the rules are now similar. They like the skirmish aspect, really simplified ruleset and the setting (tanks, stormtrooper wanna-bes and guns). Changing Fantasy to attract a few Marine players and alienating the people that like how Fantasy has worked for four editions is a stupid idea since their audience isn't as inelastic as it was 10 years ago with many more miniature games sprouting up recently. If the rules suck (and if they are very similar to WotR they will) people will just stop playing. You'll get a few who will buy the box set and maybe one army but that won't offset the people that just quit.
The local GW I play at has almost no Fantasy scene at all anymore (other than little kids playing 500 point games) and if they made the rules less like Fantasy I think it you'll be totally dead.
207
Post by: Balance
Something to keep in mind is that a lot of the WH40k changes scared people when taken individually, but the actual rules were received much better.
Perhaps these rule changes work better in practice than they sound when taken out of context.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
I agree that it is way too premature to start claiming the sky is falling since small segments of the rules may add up to be a really cool whole. However these proposed changes are going to shake up Fantasy a lot. The changes people were scared of from the proposed rules changes for 5th ed 40k were pretty much "Now my Wave Serpents can't fire everything anymore :(" or "what the hell a Rhino is worth the same amount of kill points as a Terminator squad???" The stuff that was listed in regards to Fantasy create the impression that it might be going down a path of becoming a totally different game with random charge distances, terrain everywhere, army composition changes, vastly different psychology effects and combat resolution.
I'm still on the fence on how it's going to work out since I know as little as anybody. I'm definitely a bit excited just to see such a massive shakeup and what they could be using those extra 200 rulebook pages for but I could see how people that really enjoyed how the game has worked for the last decade (6th and 7th ruleset weren't really that different for the most part) could be feeling scared.
9892
Post by: Flashman
As a Skaven player, gearing the game to 3000pts really scares me (it's taking me ages to get 1000pts painted and I'm using as many high value models as possible), but I can't see it being compulsory.
25% characters would definitely be a challenge and would result in some of the SCs (Kroak springs to mind) not appearing at all, unless they were the sole character in your army.
7375
Post by: BrookM
I just noticed that ranged units can shoot in two ranks now. Most excellent, my Nuln handgunner army might see a revival then!
666
Post by: Necros
25% limit on characters isn't to prevent herohammer and balance stuff, it's to sell more models
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
If it has the (entirely incidental) effect of making the game better, I'm cool with it
666
Post by: Necros
I do like the idea of having more troops on the table, purely from a make your army look cool standpoint.. and thats the only thing i go for anyway.
still just bummed I can't do my carnosaur & 2 engines list for my lizards. fooey!
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Probably the rumor I like least is the random charge distance. The biggest tactical element of Fantasy is guessing the charge range. Too large of a charge variation would sort of blow that, methinks.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Would it be fair to say that the use of dice adds too great an element of chance and removes a degree of skill if the rumour is true?
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
I actually quite like the idea, if only because it stops people from playing nekcihc (that's chicken in reverse...)
I find it frustrating when games devolve into two people who won't move their units for fear that their opponent will then get the charge.
17155
Post by: bhsman
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Would it be fair to say that the use of dice adds too great an element of chance and removes a degree of skill if the rumour is true?
What you say is true, but the more important question is whether or not it's the more desirable outcome, or the best way to do it. The latter's harder to come by, but I'm not so sure if this fulfills the former.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Would it be fair to say that the use of dice adds too great an element of chance and removes a degree of skill if the rumour is true?
It would be fair if 7th edition Warhammer made no use of dice ... and if dealing with random results did not require skill.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
The problem is when small amounts of dice rolls have huge effects on games. When you roll lots of dice, the averages are going to work out. However when you are depending on a single dice roll for something game changing to happen and it doesn't you feel like it was a single event that cost you the game and it was totally out of your hands. Bloodbowl is huge about this and it's incredibly frustrating. However that is a game with a much smaller scale and it's known that it's all about wacky stuff happening. With Fantasy it is supposed to be about tactics and if every army is suddenly Orcs and Goblins where you don't know if you will be able to charge it'll be very bad.
For example with that stupid Warriors of Chaos spell that removes units if you roll a 11 or 12 on the strength. The game comes down to "did I roll really lucky once and vaporize his lord's unit" which is just not fun. With conventional stuff you are throwing many attacks or shots which will typically average out over the course of a six turn game. We already have leadership tests which many people complain about when their unit of leadership 9 dwarfs roll a 10 on a panic check and run off the table. These sorts of events will rarely happen but when it does, you're screwed so people try to minimize them whenever they can. Thus the preponderance of armies that are either immune to psychology (Demons, Vampire Counts) or the meaty center that matters is (Dark Elves, Skaven, Lizardmen) and almost no units with the stupidity rule close to an army list. So really it's clear that many of the players don't appreciate this type of gameplay so why include more of it? When I want to charge it's going to really be annoying and not fun when I roll a 1 and my unit that is 6 inches away from an enemy fails its charge and there's nothing I can do about it.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
I think the random charge distance is pretty dumb. Games are going to come down to either.
Wow lucky pos you rolled a 6 and managed to barely get the charge off.
Or wow, i needed a 2 to get the charge off and rolled a 1.
The current system works fine imo, i rarely see this not moving to avoid getting charged. You have to be smart about your movement and make it so if they charge and dont break you, they are going to get flank charged.
Adding more random occurrences to a game that can already be very random isnt a good idea.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
The element of chance and responding to it is a big part of the game, so I understand what is being said.
The positioning to get the charge in first may lead to a game of chicken
What I was wondering is that you could get into a good position then roll poorly and get decimated as a consequence.
To misjudge a distance and get punished is one thing, but to cop it because of an added layer of chance on top of those already in the game seems negative.
This may in turn lead to greater caution in some players?
ps quite like the idea of playing nekchic
Maybe I need to start a Vampire Counts Army
17836
Post by: Ixquic
It SORTA works in WotR (I say sorta since that entire system is a mess) since charging and moving are different phases like in 40k. However if I can't even move my unit because they failed a charge solely due to a bad dice roll it will be crippling. Orc and Goblins would be hit especially hard when they have to test for this and animosity. If they handle it like WotR where a 1 is always a failed charce and keep animosity basically the same as it's been for ages (1s are bad) there's a 30% change you can't charge if you want to which makes the army unplayable.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Exactly, getting into good position then rolling a 1 when all you need was a 2 plus and stopping less than an inch from the unit and getting charged in return is stupid. Yes there are chances that things can go bad in the game, and these are unavoidable. My issue with it is adding more chance to the game when its not necessary.
Its very easy to position your units to make a charge undesirable for your opponent. If you position right, especially with fast cavalry, you can make it so if they charge you, they will take a flank charge or in a worse situation a rear charge in the next turn.
This leaves them in a rough situation because they know next turn you are going to charge them.
Added another random 1d6 or 2d6 to units just makes no sense to me and takes away a huge tactical aspect. Also some fast Calvary will be able to charge 30 inches with good dice rolls, with an average of around 25 inches.... thats half the table in some cases.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
WFB - The game of fantasy dice battles!
7801
Post by: Mick A
Where are people getting this possible 30" charge from? Movement of 8" plus 12" (the maximum you can get on 2d6) = 20" where I come from...
It seems a lot of comments in this thread are coming from people who only seem to play Warhammer and nothing else and by the sounds of it have only being playing the last couple of editions which were just updates really. Its not the first time there has been a drastic change to the rules and it won't be the last time either. As I said before, you don't have to play the new edition when it comes out unless your a tournie player...
Mick
4661
Post by: Minsc
Mick A wrote:It makes good business sense to make Warhammer more like 40k.
This is, of course, assuming that the people who play WHFB aren't doing it solely because it doesn't play like 40K.
Don't get me wrong, I am fine with 40K even after 5th Edition. However, if the two games are merged into one with only a variance of setting... why would I play both any more? I am not made out of money (and thus 90% of GW's higher ups would stop reading my post ), so if everything would meld together it'd give me even less incentive to expand into another system as I can just stick with what I have and not miss out on anything other than an army with scales or fur (if a 40Ker) / guys made of metal / chitin (if a WHFBite).
Mick A wrote:40k is the biggest seller of the two so if you make Warhammer similar your more likely to entice the 40k players across to play both.
As for losing current Warhammer players, let's be honest, we whinge, we moan, but we still carry on playing and buying...
Mick
Keep on buying? Less than 10% of my stuff has been bought for WHFB post-2007 (and I started WHFB in '04). I got a pair of Bolt Throwers for my O&G's. That's, about, it. I might keep playing, but - as I've covered earlier - that's just because GW's forced me between a rock and a hard place as I could either give up five years of WHFB hobbying (I've been hobbying nine overall) alongside over a thousand dollars worth of stuff for just one army, or I can bring it with me to the GW in the vain hope that another WHFB did the same because it was WotR mega-battle day and all the 40Kers are off at another shop. This isn't encouraging me to buy new stuff. It's encouraging me to pack the stuff away and wait until WHFB 9th Edition.
I'll admit, this is a bit of a strong reaction due to the new rules. However, I do not like them. If you look in this thread, lots of people do not like them. Many of the people who do like it are giving the excuse either "At least it's not WotR", or "It's more like WH40K". If you notice, most of the people in the second group admit they rarely play WHFB because they like 40K more, some even saying they don't play WHFB because it's too different from 40K. Those who play WHFB because they like it being different from 40K are not amused, and these rumors turning out to be true is a valid reason for such a group to be peeved.
Chimera_Calvin wrote:The changes in the way combat works and the hike in points value for a standard game look like they are an attempt to make big units more valuable in comparison to death stars. DS units will still exist, obviously (notably for elite armies like WoC) but should be more vulnerable to attrition - especially when people start taking large missile units.
Missile units are the main things that benefit for this rule to try balancing things out. Giving blocks of infantry that extra rank and reducing armor save penalties just makes things worse when fighting elite armies like WoC, not better. Can you imagine the trouble in trying to assault Chosen with the new rules (provided rumors are accurate)? They're pretty much always going to go first, and with their weaponskill, strength, and extra attacks, they're going to carve up more of the enemy than the enemy of them.
Mick A wrote:If people don't like the changes in the new edition why play that one? Unless your a tournie player nothing is stopping you from still playing the current edition (or even earlier ones, I actually prefer 3rd edition myself...).
Mick
If I hang with them at their place? Nothing. The problem being hanging with them at their place. Right now, it's just much more convenient to hang at a GW / Hobby Shop due to readiness of a table, that we're less bogged down by distractions, other people can play if something comes up, and so on. And in said hobby shop, at least GW's, playing prior editions is a big no-no outside something like "It's an hour before closing on Sunday evening. If you want to try and cram in a 3rd Edition 40K game, be my guest. Just make sure to have your stuff off the table in 45 minutes." While so far this hasn't proven problematic to me (I have been more interested in WHFB at the moment and thus haven't made the effort to try playing 4th Edition 40K in the last year or so), it will once this change is put into effect.
Mick A wrote:I think they have more chance of getting 40k players to try FB if its a lot closer to 40k than it is now. I personally prefer 40k as I really don't like the current FB edition (hence playing 3rd when I do play FB) but the more I read about the new edition the more interesting it sounds to me...
Mick
Oh yes, this ruleset is probably going to help with getting 40Kers into the WHFB system. It'll probably mean, even if all the Fantasy-ites leave and only about 50% of the 40Kers come over, they'll still probably break-even (and that's being exceptionally negative and positive at once, respectively for player factions). The problem being that those WHFB players who do it solely because it's not 40K (which happens to be most of my WHFB players in my area) are going to flutter away, and when that happens - with no "veterans" there to encourage further playing - the store will probably descend the last step into "Games Workshop: Where you can play 40K, and sometimes watch someone paint these odd figures on square bases" territory. Again, not that this will apply to all areas, but this is not something I am looking forward to in my area at all.
26531
Post by: VikingScott
To make such a redical set of changes there must have been complaints about the current system.
Apart from the army books does anyone here have any problems with the current book that would make changing it worthwhile?
I don't see whats wrong really (apart from the army books)
2889
Post by: Jin
Mick A wrote:It seems a lot of comments in this thread are coming from people who only seem to play Warhammer and nothing else and by the sounds of it have only being playing the last couple of editions which were just updates really. Its not the first time there has been a drastic change to the rules and it won't be the last time either. As I said before, you don't have to play the new edition when it comes out unless your a tournie player...
While people can always revert to older editions of the game, it does mean that the game that they enjoy has effectively been dropped in terms of rules support.
The problem I see with the drastic changes in this upcoming edition is that there has been precedence in doing a clean refresh of the whole game when implementing such big changes. From the sounds of things, they're trying to shoe-horn in a major revamp of the system and treating it as if it were just a minor "update".
Who knows? Maybe once we all get the actual book and play through it a bit, we'll change our minds. But as it is, the changes in general seem to be taking away a lot of the features of WFB that I and some others seem to have found appealing about Fantasy. I'll reserve final judgement for after I get the book, but the rumor mill is leaving an acrid taste in my mouth.
26531
Post by: VikingScott
Jin wrote:Mick A wrote:It seems a lot of comments in this thread are coming from people who only seem to play Warhammer and nothing else and by the sounds of it have only being playing the last couple of editions which were just updates really. Its not the first time there has been a drastic change to the rules and it won't be the last time either. As I said before, you don't have to play the new edition when it comes out unless your a tournie player...
While people can always revert to older editions of the game, it does mean that the game that they enjoy has effectively been dropped in terms of rules support.
The problem I see with the drastic changes in this upcoming edition is that there has been precedence in doing a clean refresh of the whole game when implementing such big changes. From the sounds of things, they're trying to shoe-horn in a major revamp of the system and treating it as if it were just a minor "update".
Who knows? Maybe once we all get the actual book and play through it a bit, we'll change our minds. But as it is, the changes in general seem to be taking away a lot of the features of WFB that I and some others seem to have found appealing about Fantasy. I'll reserve final judgement for after I get the book, but the rumor mill is leaving an acrid taste in my mouth.
Completly agree with you there.
+1
Couldn't say it better myself
7801
Post by: Mick A
How many of you guys out there who are saying you really dislike the rumours you've heard already can honestly say, hand on heart, that if the new edition does come out with these changes that you will stop playing WHFB?
Mick
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Mick A wrote:Where are people getting this possible 30" charge from? Movement of 8" plus 12" (the maximum you can get on 2d6) = 20" where I come from...
It seems a lot of comments in this thread are coming from people who only seem to play Warhammer and nothing else and by the sounds of it have only being playing the last couple of editions which were just updates really. Its not the first time there has been a drastic change to the rules and it won't be the last time either. As I said before, you don't have to play the new edition when it comes out unless your a tournie player...
Mick
Unless you dont move double anymore. It looked like the rule said you move your normal charge distance (which for dark riders is 18 inches) then can add on 2d6 for another possible 12 inches.
That equals 30 inches.
If they make it so you move your normal move + Xd6 that would major suck, as it would actually reduce the distance most armies can charge 75% of the time.
How many of you guys out there who are saying you really dislike the rumours you've heard already can honestly say, hand on heart, that if the new edition does come out with these changes that you will stop playing WHFB?
Mick
I wont quit the game over it, it will still be a lot of fun. Would i start playing less if a lot of these rules go into effect, Probably. Would i quit all together, Doubtful.
|
|
