18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
Sorry for all the formatting errors, it is a lot of work for me to correct this every time I do an update as it's easier for me to just copy and paste.
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.
Edit: I am changing the process of updating this a bit. What I will do is save up rumour changes for a day or two, then post them in GREEN. They will stay like this until the next update, which will then be posted in ORANGE so that people can follow all the latest changes and keep track of the previous update.
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.
All non-english rulebooks are moving to inches.
Warhammer 8th Ed Rulebook to be released July 10th
528+ pages. Full colour
Introduction games for Warhammer 8th edition starting around May 22nd (only one scenario apparently)
The book is up for advance order from a swedish store. £45.
Definitely going to get the pdf erratas for all armies on July 10th
Rulebook will come with next black box, so all shops can make demo day by 12th June.
There will be a "General's" Edition as well as a "Gunner's" Edition: Both are the basic rulebook along with multiple different gimmicks, as golden templates, dice, angulometer, combat-resolution-calculator, markers and more. "General's Edition" is supported with a white linen bag with two silver coins attached to it, so if you fall in battle, they may put them on your eyes...
ARMY SELECTION AND OTHER BITS
[*]Army construction is moving back to percentages.
25% max lords (includes mounts)
25% max heroes
25% MIN core
50% max special
25% max rare
Just so I am clear on this, as there has been some misunderstanding, you can have a lord level character leading a small army if you want to (within the points), you don't have to take a hero as you do currently. I have heard nothing about unit champions being the general
You have to take a minimum of 3 units, not including characters.
[*]Categories for core/special/rare are remaining.
[*]Special Choices: No more than 3 of the same type - Examples; No more than 3 units of Chaos Knights, or 3 units of Forsaken etc in the same army.
Rare Choices: No more than 2 of the same type - Examples; No more than 2 Hellcannons, or 2 Chaos Giants etc in the same army.
[*]High Elves ignore all these restrictions as they have the Elite Army special rule.
[*]These numbers are increased when having games of 3000 points or more. (Up to 6 special and 4 rare) Could be +1 of the same type of special and rare per 1000pts.
Allied Forces
[*]Allied forces will not get a % allocation. However, rules for using allied forced (i.e. an updated allied forces chart) are in the rulebook.
[*]Allies are now split into 3 groups:
Forces of Order: High Elves, Wood Elves, Lizardmen, Empire, Dwarfs and Brettonia
Forces of Destruction: Chaos of any kind, Skaven, Greenskins, Dark Elves (edit. Vampire Counts may go here).
Neutral: Ogres and Tomb Kings
[*]The allies rules are intended to be used by more than 2 players. You are not supposed to use more than one armybook in your army.
[*]Allies from the same grouping are allowed to use the other army General’s leadership, but cause panic in units of the other army if they are forced to flee. If an allied unit is forced to flee through another ally from a different group, the stationary unit counts as dangerous terrain (see below under terrain).
Example: High Elves (Force of Order) flee through Warriors of Chaos (Force of Destruction).
[*]If you are allied with Dark Elves or Skaven you have to roll every friendly turn in order to see what sort of ally they are (need more info on this).
[*]If you are playing games over 3000pts with allied forces, one general has to be nominated as the Grand General, who increases his leadership radius to 18".
[*]There will be a system wide errata to clear up issues for each army. These are NOT rebalancing lists, only making them conform to the 8th ed rules.
You may measure distances whenever you want.
Chaos Dwarfs are not in the book. :cries:
MOVEMENT
Single models have a 180 degree arc of sight. Units still have a 90 degrees arc of sight
Standard Movement
[*]Measure the distance for the furthest moving model, and perform whatever manoeuvres you wish within that lax limitation (i.e. they all move like fast cav currently do, minus the reform).
Charging.
[*]Infantry M1-M6 = Basic Movement value + 2D6
Fast Attack M7+ (Cavalry and fliers) = Basic Movement value + 3D6 use 2 highest)
[*]+1CR for charging. -Avian (more likely)
[*]Units charged by multiple enemies can change their charge reaction. For instance, you hold against the first enemy that charges you, then change it to flee when the second unit charges you.
Failed Charge
[*]I think you only move the result of the D6's you rolled, you do not add on your basic movement.
Fliers
[*]Move 10 " and march 20 ". They ignore terrain whilst moving. While fleeing or pursuing, they move 3D6"
Fast Cavalry
[*]Apparently Fast Cavalry may make a free 12" move at the beginning of the game, but cannot charge an enemy in the first turn, and cannot end their movement within 12”.
Fleeing/Pursuing
[*]Fleeing/pursuit is rolled for the same way as charging. Units fleeing through impassable terrain and enemy units; see below under dangerous terrain.
Pursuit
[*]When you charge and reach a fleeing unit, you only wipe it out if you pass a Ld test.
Marching.
[*]Double Movement distance as normal.
Enemy Sighted
[*]When there's an enemy within 8", the unit has to pass a leadership test to march. Not sure how this applies to Dwarfs.
Reforming
[*] In the Remaining Moves phase, a unit with a musician may reform for free, as long as the unit passes a leadership test. You can shoot, but count as moving.
Units containing a musician can do a free reform after failing a charge if they pass a Ld test. Units may reform after the combat phase, but cannot have less models in base contact. Units that lost the combat resolution have to make a Ld test in order to reform, and must reform 2nd.
Heavy cavalry
[*]Unchanged. Rumour was wrong, heavy cav march as normal.
Skirmishers
[*]Skirmishers are now a fixed formation, and must be deployed with a 1/2 inch gap between each and every model.
X = Model
O = 1" Gap between
X O X O X O X O X
O O O O O O O O O
X O X O X O X O X
Skirmishers still rank up in combat, but as they do not get a rank bonus they cannot negate enemy rank bonuses. As long as they are not charging, Skirmishers can reform on the move as often as they wish and also march and shoot.
[*]Charging Skirmishers, you line up to them, not them to you.
[*]Skirmishers are NOT stubborn in a forest. I think this is Wood Elves only.
[*]Skirmishers do not have 360 degree Line of sight.
Redirecting charges
[*]If I have understood this correctly, it seems we’re going back to 6th ed rules. You can redirect a charge at any other valid target following the normal rules for declaring charges, not just at an enemy unit lying on your direct pursuit path.
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 anonymous sources:
Generating Power and Dispel Dice
[*]Power dice aren’t generated by the number of spellcasters. The amount of dice is decided by 2D6. The active player gets the total as power dice and the other player the highest throw as dispel dice (throw 3+5, = 8 PD and 5 DD). (confirmed)
Channeling (confirmed that it exists)
[*]Each wizard may roll a D6 and generate an additional power dice on a roll of 6.
[*]Each enemy wizard may roll a D6 and generate an additional dispel dice on a roll of 6.
[*]You may not channel while fleeing, off the board or when you suffer from stupidity..
Maximum Power and Dispel Dice
[*]The maximum number of power or dispel dice you may have at any time is 12. This includes any power/dispel dice generated by special rules, spells and/or magic items.
You cannot channel over 12 power or dispel dice.
The only items that allow you to use more than 12PD a turn are items that add the dice directly to the roll, such as a Power Stone or the Slann's ability.
Casting Spells
[*]To cast a spell, roll 1 to 6 Power dice and add your caster's power level. EG: A Slann casts fireball and uses 2D6. He rolls a 3 and a 4 - score of 7. He than adds his Power Level of 4, which results in a total roll of 11.
Dispelling
[*]Caster levels are now added to dispel rolls.
Miscasting
Here is where I think we need a lot more information.
[*]It is rumoured that miscasts are entirely gone, but are replaced by a combined irresistible force/ miscast table effectively:
[*]When you roll a double 6 the spell is cast with irresistible force, but the Caster has to roll on the "lost control" chart, which is devastating, and far more worse than the current miscast table.
Lost Control Chart
The loss of Control table is 2D6.
One of the results: Could be S10 hit for caster and models in base contact.
Another result: The wizard is sucked into the warp and the large template is centred over him. S10 hits for models under a 5” template, centred on the wizard. Also, roll a D6. On a roll of 1-3 your wizard is plunged into the realm of chaos, ond a 4+ you lose D6 power dice instead.
Another result: All your wizards take a Str 6 hit with no armor saves
11-12 result: Your caster lose d3 wizard levels, and forgets that many spells.
Determining Spells
[*]Each lore now has 7 Spells. One Basic Spell and other spells numbered 1 - 6.
[*]While writing the armylist, you will have to note which lore your magic users will use. You may not wait until you see the enemies forces. - I'm not sure how well that will actually work in practice... :confused:
[*]Next you need to see which casters can have which spells. Roll D6 and see which spell you got, similar to how it is now. Any spell can be swapped for the Basic Spell. If you roll double for a spell you have to re-roll until you have the required number for the wizard level.
[*]As no two spells from the rulebook Lores can be duplicated in the army (except the Basic Spell), if you want more than 1 wizard to have spells from the same lore you now have a choice to make.
Example: You have 3 wizards you want to use the Lore of Fire. A level 4, a level 3 and a level 1.
Do you give the level 4 wizard 3 spells + the Basic Spell? Or 4 spells and leave the remaining 2 spells plus the Basic Spell for the level 3 wizard? The level 1 wizard has no options other than the Basic Spell in this example, as all the other spells have already been taken.
[*]There are some exceptions to this way of choosing spells:
Bound spells
Spells the caster knows "naturally", eg Warrior Priests or Khemri Priests
Spells that are not rolled for but bought, i.e. Necromancers.
Bound spells
[*]Bound spells are cast like normal spells now, but instead of your caster's power level, you add the level of the magic item. They do not roll on the Loss of Control table, the items are just destroyed if they roll the double 6. Bound abilities like the warrior priests they just forget the spell.
[*]Every magic user has access to the pool.
[*]Most spells generally have a basic and an up-powered version (more likely) – Avian
[*]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.
[*]Each lore to get a mega spell.
[*]Spells can be chosen, not rolled for, but can't be duplicated in the same army with the exception of the first spell of the lore -Avian (more likely)
[*]If you roll a 1 or 2 when casting a spell, the spell automatically fails regardless of modifiers and the wizard may no longer cast this turn.
[*]Some spells will scale up.
Spells are now categorized. There are: Missiles, Curses, Buffs, Direct Damage and Power Whirl spells.
[*]Magic Missiles: Require Line of Sight and may not be cast into close combat.
[*]Hex: Modify enemy stats and/or equipment
[*]Augmentation (Buffs): Support your own troops
[*]Direct damage: Spells that use templates or apply to the whole target unit.
[*]Power whirls: A template that moves across the table.
[*]It is rumoured that ‘remains in play’ spells are not auto dispelled by casting another spell.
Lore of Fire - The Wind of Aqshy
Special Bonus: If the enemy suffered a wound from a fire lore spell earlier this magic phase, the casting costs of Lore of Fire spells on the same target is lowered by d3, cumulative.
[*]Missiles:
Fireball; which sounds like it could be D6 S4, or 2D6 S5, or 3D6 S6 hits.
[b]Flaming Arrows 48" Range. S4
[*]Buffs:
Flaming Sword(s) of Rhuin: Unit Buff. Grants +1 to wound and flaming attacks.
[*]Direct damage:
[*]Power whirls:
Lore of Metal - The Wind of Chamon
Special Bonus: Direct damage spells from the lore of metal have no strength value. Instead the unmodified armour save of the target is the required roll to wound.
[*]Basic Spell (name): D6 flaming hits, No armor saves allowed. casting value 10
[*]Missiles:
[*]Curses:
Swap the enemies armour save for their toughness, e.g. 1+ save and toughness 3 becomes toughness 1 and 3+ save.
[*]Buffs:
Possibly a spell that grants every unit in 12" scaly skin (5+ armour)
[*]Direct damage:
[*]Power whirls:
Lore of Shadow - The Wind of Ulgu
Special Bonus: After the wizard successfully casts a spell, he may switch places with another friendly character of the same unit type within 18".
[*]Missiles:
[*]Curses:
[*]Buffs:
One spell you can switch the position of two characters that are 'within 18"' (not sure if they have to be within 18" of each other, or just to the caster).
[*]Direct damage:
[*]Power whirls:
Lore of Beasts - The Wind of Grrrr (Ghur)
(name). Caster Buff. The level 6 beast spell has 2 (possibly 3 casting values). The caster BECOMES the creature, not summoned on any board edge etc.
At 16+
Mountain Chimera
S7 T7 W10, Fly, 4D6 attacks! complexity is 24. mage has to be on foot. Remains in play.
20+
Greater Fire Dragon
WS8 S8 T8 W8 A8 Ld9, breathweapon S5, scaly skin 2+, terror, fly. mage has to be on foot. Remains in play
Something for a Hydra as well, I don’t know any more about this.
Lore of Heavens - The Wind of Azyr
Special Bonus:
[*]Missiles:
[*]Curses:
[*]Buffs:
'Something' Razor (not sure of the name). Unit Buff. The units strength are their Ld stat.
[*]Direct damage:
[*]Power whirls:
Several levels of Comet. It scales up.
Lore of Light - The Wind of Hysh
Special Bonus:
[*]Missiles:
[*]Curses:
[*]Buffs:
Unit Buff: All units within 12” have +1 attack and double movment,
Unit Buff: All units within 12” have Initiative 10 and Weapon Skill 10
Unit Buff:
Unit Buff:
[*]Direct damage:
[*]Power whirls:
Lore of Life - The Wind of Ghyran
Special Bonus: Every time the caster successfully casts a spell from the Lore of Life he can restore a wound to one model within 12”
[*]Basic spell: Shooting -1 to hit modifier and -1 leadership. If the enemy didn’t use BS they are 4+ to shoot. 7+
[*]Missiles:
Forest Lord: Magic missile attack to any enemy unit within 18" of a forest. Or D6 strength 5 hits or 2d6 strength 5 hits to a unit in the forest.
[*]Buffs:
Regeneration (name?): Unit Buff. Regeneration (6+) to one unit within 12”
Master of Stone: Unit Buff. +2 Toughness to one unit. Casting value 8
Regrowth (name?). Unit Buff. One unit regains D3+1 wounds/models, just like invocation (champ first, then musician/standard, then rank and file. Characters are selected separately)
Throne of Vines: Caster Buff. If this is successfully cast it increases the effect of other lore of life spells made by the caster: Regeneration becomes 5+, Master of Stone becomes +4 Toughness!!!, Forest Lord all hits become Strength 6, Regrowth regains D6+1 wounds. Something for the 6th spell as well.
I heard something about an immunity to miscast on a 2+ for the lore of life, but I don’t know if this is their 6th spell, a remains in play caster buff.
Lore of Death - The Wind of Shyish
Special Bonus: For each wound caused by lore of death spells, roll a D6. On a roll of 6 you are granted an additional power dice.
[*]Missiles:
[*]Curses:
[*]Buffs:
[*]Direct damage:
[*]Power whirls:
Purple Sun. A crystal sphere drifting above the battlefield. It uses the 3 inch template, moving artillerydice multiplied by 3 inches from the wizard into a chosen direction. Each model touched has to pass a I-test or is removed from play.
And the other rumours:
[*]Each spell can be cast once per magic phase, regardless of how many casters there are. - Avian says this is possibly speculation.
SHOOTING
Single models have a 180 degree arc of sight. Units still have a 90 degrees arc of sight.
Fire in 2 ranks.
[*]All missile weapons fire in 2 ranks as standard
[*]Missile units will not gain a rank when shooting from hills. -Harry I think
Salvo Fire
[*] Units armed with bows, short bows and longbows may shoot with an additional half a rank for every rank behind the 2nd. I.e. 12 models wide, 3 ranks (36 models). 12 front rank, 12 2nd rank, 6 3rd rank = 30 shots. Salvo fire only applies if you haven't moved and not when you stand and shoot.
Look Out Sir!
I have yet to get this confirmed, take with salt:
"Look out, Sir!": Characters that are in the vicinity of a friendly unit may profit from Look out, Sir - so you do not have to join a unit for that rule to apply.
The roll won't always be successful on a 2+ - this depends on the size of the character compared to the friendly unit:
Normal Infantry character inside Infantry unit
Normal Cavalry character inside Cavalry unit
Normal Monstrous Infantry character inside Monstrous Infantry unit
All the above are 2+ save as normal
I believe characters on cavalry mounts inside infantry units are saved on a 4+ instead.
Characters within 3" max. distance away from the unit get something like a 5+ save. Since they're dropping Unit Strength I don't know what the upper size limit would be on this.
True Line of sight
[*]Units draw true line of sight. You are considered in cover when shot at through another unit, granting a -1 or -2 penalty on to hit rolls. Note that someone else has said this is more likely as well.
War Machines
[*]Weapons using the flame template or large or small blast templates automatically hit any model in contact rather than cause partial hits. If you are touched, you are hit. -Avian and someone else, so I'm considering this confirmed now
War Machines: There'll be no guessing anymore. You place the template (or point of impact) where you want the weapon to hit and roll normally for scatter. Take with a big pinch of salt at this stage.
Shooting a cannon
[*]You nominate a spot then roll the two artillery dice for bounces. If you hit a unit, the strength decreases like a bolt thrower's bolt, starting at S10. If the first bounce hits a wall, the shot is wasted but the wall is destroyed.
Stone Thrower
[*]Reduced to S3(9), armour saves are allowed.
Warmachines and special wargear:
Warmachines and special wargear (Cauldron of Blood, Anvil of Doom, Casket of Souls etc) will all have a combined Wounds profile now, similar to the Skaven Warplightning Cannon.
All shooting is directed against the machines toughness, all close combat attacks are directed against Crews WS/Toughness.
The number of wounds the warmachine has is equal to total wounds of the crew. Independent Characters may no longer join Warmachine crews, Engineers can only guide the machines from up to 3” away.
Warmachines and special wargear in combat:
Warmachines are not immune to poison anymore.
While in close combat 6 Infantry OR 3 Cavalry OR 2 Monstrous Infantry/Cavalry or 1 Monster/ Ridden Monster can attack the warmachine. You may combine these (eg 1 Monstrous Infantry, I cavalry and 1 Infantry model may attack).
For characters using special wargear (e.g. the Death Hag with the Cauldron, or Runelord with the Anvil), the combat abilities of the guardians are added to the hero's profile, along with their wounds.
Change to Wound table
[*]All the ‘N’ are replaced with a 6… I’m taking this one with a fair bit of salt.
COMBAT
NOTE: Trying to nail down what the facts are here is very hard. Some of this is only my understanding of what has been discussed.
Supportive Attacks
[*]Infantry models in the second rank can fight, with a maximum of 1A per model. - Avian/Harry.
[*]This is only for models fighting to the front. Units charged in the flank or rear only fight in 1 rank, but being charged in the flank or rear will not stop units fighting in multiple ranks to the front.
[*]Most special rules apply as normal. however... Whatever combination of weapons/ special rules/ spells/ whatever, infantry can only ever attack with 1 attack per model in the second and subsequent ranks.
[*]Spears +1 rank as normal, but one attack only (fighting in 3 ranks).
[*]Spearelves may fight with an additional rank as normal (citzen levy).
[*]This does not apply to Monstrous Infantry, who are rumoured to fight with a maximum of 3 attacks per model from the second rank (more likely).
Make Way
[*]After charges, before even impact hits are done, a champion can move to the front of the attacked rank.
Cavalry
[*]Riders only in the second rank may attack.
Stepping up. – Harry/ Avian / other people
[*]Casualties are strictly removed from the back. A unit only loses attacks if it runs out of replacement models in the rank in base contact. [extremely likely].
Horde
[*]10+ wide units attack with one rank more than normal. Monstrous infantry like Ogres need to be only 6 wide to benefit from this rule. There are no other requirements to be a Horde. - Avian
Stubborn
[*]If you are only engaged to the front and have more ranks than the opponent, you are Stubborn. - Avian/Harry
Unit Strength
[*]Unit Strength is completely gone, lots of things are altered to compensate for this. -Avian
Rank bonuses
[*]Unchanged. Up to 3.
Monstrous Creatures
[*]40mm models moving to 3 model-wide ranks. Ogre sized models are officially being put into their own size category (finally).
Crush them! or Stomp, one of these names
[*]Monstrous Cavalry and Monstrous Infantry are granted 1 bonus attack with the "always strikes last" special rule, at base strength (includes Great Eagles and Disks). (edit. I believe only infantry and cavalry can be hit with these, nothing else.) This does not replace impact hits. 1 rank only.
Destroy them! or Thunderstomp, one of these names
[*]Larger Creatures and Monsters do D6 attacks instead of 1 attack for crush them. (edit. I believe only infantry and cavalry can be hit with these, nothing else.) This does not replace impact hits.
Striking in Initiative order
[*]Combat will always strictly be resolved in initiative order (confirmed).
Chariots
[*]S7 autokill is gone. - Avian (more likely)
One Save..
[*]I'm just going to move this back here again for now. Armour saves as normal, then either Ward Saves OR regeneration. This is coming from 1 person who has read the book, and another who has been very eliable in the past.
Outnumbering Enemy
[*]There will be no CR bonus for outnumbering the enemy.
Flank/ Rear charges & Combat Resolution
[*]Units need to have at least 2 complete ranks in order to negate enemy flank/rear. (more likely)
Change to Wound table
[*]All the ‘N’ are replaced with a 6… I’m taking this one with a fair bit of salt.
Breath Weapons
[*]Monsters with a breath weapon may use it once per battle in either the shooting phase (no partials under the template) OR once in combat, with 2D6 hits with the breath weapons strength in combat. This is in initiative order. At the moment it looks like it will be in addition to regular attacks, not instead of.
Parry
[*]The hand weapon & shield combination grants a 6+ Ward Save in combat to the front only. It provides no benefit if you are attacked in the flank or rear and does not work against impact hits and crush them/destroy them attacks. This replaces the +1 to Armour Save gained by fighting with HW & shield.
As ward saves do not stack normally, you won't get any benefit from Parry if you already have a better ward save.
It is not a second ward save (afaik).
It is not a ward save ontop of an armour save (afaik)
It does not stack (afaik).
Overrunning
[*]When you destroy an enemy unit you can either overrun or immediately reform to face the direction of your liking.
WEAPONS
Combat Weapons
[*]Great weapons Always strike last (this overrides any army book rules). Can be used in 2 ranks!
[*]Cavalry armed with Great Weapons have +2 Strength
Missile Weapons
[*]Longbows Same. See shooting above for more rules.
[*]Pistols have 12" range.
Quick to Fire
[*]Pistols, thrown weapons, and blowpipes Dont suffer the -1 to hit while moving. These are also the only weapons you can stand and shoot with if the enemy charges you from within their basic movement range.
PSYCHOLOGY
Panic
[*]Seems to be unchanged. Panic is now the only thing listed under 'psychology', everything else is a special rule.
SPECIAL RULES
[*]The number of universal special rules has doubled. Presumably this is just drawing in some from the army books themselves.
[*]Units can reroll all leadership tests within 12" of the battle standard.
[*]If the General is on a Large Target mount the Ld range is 18” instead.
Stubborn
[*]Stubborn units can use the general's leadership for break tests if within 12".
Fear
[*]Fear tests are taken at the start of every combat phase.
[*]If you fail the Fear test you are reduced to WS1 & A1. Presumably mounts are reduced to WS1 & A1 as well. Edit; it may be you get to keep your full amount of attacks.
[*]Fear does not make enemies flee.
Terror
[*]Terror tests are taken at the start of every combat phase, the current limit of one Terror test per game is removed.
[*]If you fail the Terror test you are reduced to WS1 & A1. Presumably mounts are reduced to WS1 & A1 as well. Edit; it may be you get to keep your full amount of attacks. Terror incorporates fear
- Like now you need to take a Terror test if charged by a Terror causer. If failed you flee.
- The other two things Terror does (test to charge a Terror causer and test if within 6" of Terror causer at the start of a turn) are removed
[*]Autobreaking from fear or terror is gone.
[*]Leadership tests against fear is rumoured to be going
[*]Fear and Terror incorporate immune to panic (with possibly a change to crumbling for undead).
Killing Blow
[*]Whenever you roll a 6 to wound, a model looses all remaining wounds. No Armour Saves or regeneration may be taken. It may only be used against: Infantry, anything on a cavalry base, or characters riding monster/chariot.
Heroic Killing Blow
[*]Whenever you roll a 6 to wound, a model looses all remaining wounds. No Armour Saves or regeneration may be taken. At the moment it appears this can be used against anything…
Note that something that is immune to Killing Blow is also immune to Heroic Killing Blow.
Always Strike Last
[*]Models with great weapons will always strike last
Always Strike First
[*]ASL combined with ASF cancel each other out. Strike in initiative order.
However ASF + higher initiative than your enemy: Reroll to hit rolls. So even if Swordmasters and White Lions are striking in initiative order they may get re-rolls to hit!
Frenzy
[*]+1 attack all the time (front rank only for regular infantry and cavalry).
What I am hearing about this is that if the enemy is within Movement +12”, you have to take a leadership test. If you fail, you have to attack the closest target.
Mounts no longer are granted frenzy/hated/etc from riders.
Magic Resistance
[*]This has been changed to improve an existing Ward Save, or to grant a Ward Save to magic.
Magic Resistance 1 = +1 Ward Save against Magic. For a unit without a ward save this is 6+
Magic Resistance 2 = +2 Ward Save against Magic. For a unit without a ward save this is 5+
Magic Resistance 3 = +3 Ward Save against Magic. For a unit without a ward save this is 4+
For things that already have a Ward Save, Flesh Hounds for instance, they have a 5+ Ward save already, and MR(3). This gives them a 5+ save against shooting/ combat, and a 2+ Ward Save against magic.
It seems magic resistance does not work at all against Curses (or Hexes), only against magic missiles, direct damage and power whirls.
Strider..(insert type of terrain)
[*]A new special rule. This allows you to treat the type of terrain in brackets as open terrain. For instance Strider (Forests). There is a plain Strider that allows you to treat everything as open terrain (presumably not buildings).
Regeneration
[*]Regeneration will come in several types. The Slanns ability for example will grant him Regeneration (3+), while there is a mundane magic item that grants regeneration (6+).
Flaming attacks play a much bigger role. People with flaming weapons cause Fear in War Beasts (hounds etc), chariots, and Monsters. When you have regeneration and are wounded by flaming attacks, you lose regeneration until the next phase (combat to combat for example).
MAGIC ITEMS
[*]Apparently there is an absolutely HUGE list of magic items in the book… Could easily be 50+ (possibly 85). There is a chance you may not be able to duplicate most of them in a list.
[*]10-20 items in each category.
Dwarfs and Daemons of Chaos do not have access to Common Magic Items. Army book values for magic items override the Rulebook if different.
Staff of Channelling Wizard channels additional PD at the roll of 5+ instead of 6
Screaming Blade: Bearer causes Fear
Potion of Strength: 20 points, +D3 Strength for one turn
Potion of Toughness: 20 points, +D3 Toughness for one turn
Foldable Tower: 100pts. Enchanted item. The bearer of this item may place a tower in his deployment zone at the beginning of game.!?
Banner: There is a magical standard that lets you reroll the charge distance (or one die, not sure which)
Scarecrow: Banner. 5 Points, makes the unit cause fear to flyers.
(name?): Banner. Plain Strider, which means you ignore all terrain (except buildings I think).
Dispel Scroll: As normal.
There are some other Scrolls I keep hearing about, but I don't know the full details yet:
4+ ward against wounds done by the spell used.
Irresistible force on every double.
Something about turning someone into a frog..:eyebrows:
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 units to capture objectives (not just core). 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.
[*]A section in the rulebook dealing with specific issues that may arise during battles
Terrain
[*]D6+4 compulsory terrain.
[*]Terrain will not just affect the movement phase so much but will affect fleeing units, like in the War of the Ring game.
[*]The rulebook includes terrain rules for all the GW products.
[*]There are rules for dangerous terrain, and for some unit types different types of terrain are treated as dangerous. Cavalry treat all non-open terrain as Dangerous Terrain
Dangerous Terrain
[*]Roll D6 for every model, on a 1 it loses a wound
Forests
[*]Roll a D6 the first[u/] time any model enters a forest, the forest will stay like this for the rest of the battle. Note that the numbers for the roles below may not actually be the numbers, but the effects are;
1 = Regular Forest
2 = Ghostly Forest - a unit standing in it causes Fear
3 = Blood Forest - if magic is cast on a unit standing in the forest it suffers 1d6 hits at S4, and then the forest moves 2d6" into a random direction…
4 = Mushroom Forest - all units in it have Stupidity, except for Goblins, who become Stubborn.
5 = Poisonous Forest – it is treated as ‘dangerous terrain’. The unit standing in it has Poisoned attacks.
6 = Finding a magic item in the woods.? Or this one could be a unit charging out of a cursed forest causes fear.
[*]Cavalry [u]always treats a forest as ‘dangerous terrain’ (see above), regardless of what type of forest it is.
[*]Fighting in woods is -1 CR for ranked infantry and +1 CR for skirmishers. Might be worse for cavalry. – Avian
Rivers
[*]Seems this will be similar to forests, you make a role to see what type of river it is.
One of them is Blood Flow, which makes the unit that attacks from the river cause fear.
Arcane Ruins
[*]Arcane Ruines allow a mage in rage to roll up to 4 dices for channelling.
Rulebook Scenarios
The scenarios in the rulebook are split into Battles and Missions. Missions are not intended to be used in Tournaments.
Battles
[*]Pitched Battle
[*]Battle of the Pass
[*]Hold the Temple
Missions
[*]Invasion of Chrace
Battle: Battle of the Pass
The rules for this are on the throne of skulls website I think.
Battle: Hold the Temple
A Chaos temple is in the middle of the battlefield. Before the game it was rolled who was in charge of the place. The army that rolled higher on a D6 was entitled to put one of their Core Units there before the beginning of the game. The objective was to have any unit (not just Core) there at the end of the game in order to win. The Chaos Temple allowed for 'sacrificing' the soul of a Champion/Character for random stats boost (or, on the roll of 1, a quick and painful death.)
Discredited rumours
Fight-until-someone-breaks
Lapping around
Armour Save Modifiers changing. They’re not.
Standard Bearer does not allow you to re-roll one of the charging dice
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Sounding interesting, but still not 100% convinced myself on most of the rumours, particularly the Fear/Terror rules. No longer auto-break when beaten by outnumbering Fear Causers seriously knackers Undead players right now, as the typical gist of their success in combat comes from just that. They don't duff you over horribly, just enough, and then you poop yourself and leg it.
Variable charge reach though...whether it's true or not I LIKE! Works beautifully in War Of The Ring...
Also, no marching for Heavy Cavalry? Not sure I believe that one at all.
But time shall tell!
666
Post by: Necros
Thanks. Please keep this post updated so we don't have to weed through 12,000 wishlisty posts to find what we need 
12955
Post by: Grimhowl
I like some things, not sure about others. Hopefully aspects of it will become more concrete soon.
I like Missile troops all firing in two ranks, means they will take up less real-estate on the table to still be effective. I really like the idea of random Charge distance, I hope this stays.
I'm intrigued by the distinction between heavy and medium cavalry, I'd like to see this make it.
Now all of that is from someone who hasn't played the current edition at all, but I'm starting to get interested in Fantasy again.
21678
Post by: Karon
Please not that blue, I can barely read it, if at all.
Doubt a lot of these rumors, including variable charge distance, just to unreliable, and makes skill less important when you can just get a lucky assault.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Makes it harder and more tactical though, as you can work out the average, and try to stay out of it. After all, you'll be wanting to charge at some point, so it's quite important whether you risk a long range charge, or try to bait your opponent. Not knowing is a lot more tactical than a sure thing.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Makes it harder and more tactical though, as you can work out the average, and try to stay out of it. After all, you'll be wanting to charge at some point, so it's quite important whether you risk a long range charge, or try to bait your opponent. Not knowing is a lot more tactical than a sure thing.
I disagree. The way it is now its very tactical, and predicatable.
The new way its more like bs, he stupidly went for the charge and got a 6.
Or all i needed was a 2 and rolled a 1.
WHFB does not need any more randomness then it already has.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I seriously think the decision between a long range charge, or playing it safe adds a lot more depth to your manouvering.
21678
Post by: Karon
The thing is, though, that it adds such a tedious roll when we already have a very reliable and tactical thing in place right now.
I don't see a fluff reason, or any reason for that matter, to change the system, especially in this way.
And really, it's not any more tactically involving. Say I do play it safe, I am 7 inches away from him with my Gors with M5. I didn't go for a long charge, I played it safe.
So I roll, and I get a 
Too unreliable.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I seriously think the decision between a long range charge, or playing it safe adds a lot more depth to your manouvering.
Appears so, I dont believe it adds depth tho, i believe it adds luck.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Though I guess Frenzy throws this into some doubt, as if I don't know my Charge Reach, surely they would have to change the compulsory charge thingy?
Which just goes to confirm my status as seeing most of these rumours as wishlisting.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Though I guess Frenzy throws this into some doubt, as if I don't know my Charge Reach, surely they would have to change the compulsory charge thingy?
Which just goes to confirm my status as seeing most of these rumours as wishlisting.
It would make frenzy incredibly crippling if they did it this way. (more then it can be now if your oppenent has fast calv and is smart)
The rule would have to look something like, if the unit is within your max charge range (whatever it is plus the D6) then you have to attemp to charge them... Then you just force them to charge and laugh when they dont get a 6.
I can already run frenzied units around the table with dark riders.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
@Karon
Apparently "lime" here is actually blue, and "red" is green...
I really hate that as well, it's only small editing to change it, so I will try and do that each time.
If what I have been told is true, there are a great many smaller changes that are coming that have not been discussed yet. Basically they have looked at everything.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Combat - is going to make my head hurt.
Magic - Sounds like fun, but I guess we Skaven already have our "Mega Spell" (They should limit this to Lord Level Wizards if only for fluff reasons)
Shooting - Somebody (may as well be me) should point out that High Elves currently do not have shoot in two ranks. I would have made certain shooting weapons (i.e. bows) able to carry out indirect fire. All ranks can shoot, but only hit on a 5+ or something.
Cavalry - Impact hits I tell you! This is what cavalry does! Oh well, if it doesn't happen, not a major issue for my rats
Fire - Got do something more interesting than cancel out regeneration (though with the prevalence of this rule in 7th, who goes into battle without a flaming sword these days?!) and incinerate treemen/tomb kings. Indeed this latter rule is kind of a hang up from when poison only hurt alive units (which I preferred, but pick your direction GW!). Anyway, flaming attacks/wounds cause panic perhaps?
Magic again - Low level wizards should only roll a D3 when selecting spells thus denying them the last 3 spells in table which tend to be more powerful. We tend to play this as a house rule anyway, stops small games being decided by spells with disproportionate effects.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Grimstonefire wrote:Killing Blow
# [*]Killing blow only against models in a similar size category or lower (large creature>ogre sized> infantry/cavalry sized)
Interesting if true. Would be kinda cool is BT was able to KB Dragons and the like.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
I have read about impact hits somewhere, but I think they need to charge over a certain distance or something.
Could have been cavalry 1
Ogre sized D3
Large creature D6
If I can find the place it was posted I may ask around.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Grimstonefire wrote:[*]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
Ugh, I hope it isn't true about them needing a banner to capture objectives! I only take dryads for core (forest spirit wood elves) and they can't have banners...
Thanks for compiling this! A lot of it looks great, I'm getting excited for the new edition!
4713
Post by: efarrer
Grimstonefire wrote:
[*] 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.
Edit. Just as I thought this part was looking certain, there have been some rumours/ sources saying 25% max characters, 25% min core, 50% max special and 15% max rare. I will edit one out as it become clear.
[*] 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.
.
You know, I've been hosed by edition changes before but if these percentages are right I'm done.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
All good generals need to adapt. There will be a long period of adjustment as people relearn how to use their armies again, but the essential fact that it should be a fun game remains.
666
Post by: Necros
Grimstonefire wrote:All good generals need to adapt. There will be a long period of adjustment as people relearn how to use their armies again, but the essential fact that it should be a fun game remains.
that's how it is for every new edition and new codex or army book.
Folks complain that they need an update. Then they get an update and complain about it.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Those who stick with it, adapt and actually play the game also get cheap armies on ebay!
4713
Post by: efarrer
Grimstonefire wrote:All good generals need to adapt. There will be a long period of adjustment as people relearn how to use their armies again, but the essential fact that it should be a fun game remains.
I wrote a much nastier set of thoughts up and then ruined it by deciding to think and post why I think this edition will fail as badly as the preceding one. I should note I'm no GW apologist- I wasn't when I worked for them and I'm not now.
1. On percentages and other caps
Reducing the interest in buying models always strikes me as a poor choice for a company that sells models.
Let's take characters as an example...
Characters and Special characters are nearly pure gold for the company- so long as they can sell them. The percentage caps would limit characters to no more then 500 points in a 2000 point army. Now it's possible the plan is to inch the bar higher (3000 maybe) but again this is problematic- the higher the bar the lower the chance of the intro player buying in. The current minimum entry point is about 400 Canadian for a 2000 point army. How much higher do they want to push that?
2. Edition fatigue
The games problem is that it's not really a good game now and I would argue it never was a great game (sales numbers since 40K arrived tend to argue my point for me). It's playable but poorly constructed and cynicism suggests that this edition is just going to be a continuation of the not a games company syndrome. Nothing in the press releases suggests to me that the company is at all interested in the game itself as a product other then as a way to sell more product. The edition fatigue is creates another economic flaw short term sales help the bottom line short term...not long term. Every edition change I have seen the company make for fantasy has resulted in fewer players. Is it the editions or the changing market? I'm not sure.
3. The problem isn't the game.
THe problem with the current edition is not the game. It's the piecemeal approach that the armybook design process that the company uses is hurting the game end. This remains a huge problem in both systems set in the GW universes, and it's compounded by a lack of willingness to address issues of balance outside of the codex release cycle. Often this results in edition changes which "nerf " armies out of apparent spite. Leading to more lost players.
71
Post by: Matt Varnish
If I recall the good ole days of Smoking Gun, Eddie, didnt we all have that 25% character restriction for Jeff's big campaigns?
I haven't played very much 7th Fantasy, focusing mainly on 40k, but me and some friends are eagerly awaiting 8th, hopefully it can address some of the inherent army book balances, since I hear that its pretty bad right now.
I guess we'll know in a few months...
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Flashman wrote:
Shooting - Somebody (may as well be me) should point out that High Elves currently do not have shoot in two ranks. I would have made certain shooting weapons (i.e. bows) able to carry out indirect fire. All ranks can shoot, but only hit on a 5+ or something.
Cavalry - Impact hits I tell you! This is what cavalry does! Oh well, if it doesn't happen, not a major issue for my rats
I love these ideas, and would also like to submit that pretty much every army be able to get a "Flaming" upgrade for their Archers.
4713
Post by: efarrer
Matt Varnish wrote:If I recall the good ole days of Smoking Gun, Eddie, didnt we all have that 25% character restriction for Jeff's big campaigns?
I haven't played very much 7th Fantasy, focusing mainly on 40k, but me and some friends are eagerly awaiting 8th, hopefully it can address some of the inherent army book balances, since I hear that its pretty bad right now.
I guess we'll know in a few months...
It may be the scarcity of games of Fantasy in the city I live in that is driving my pessimism.
And you could be right about Jeff's rules for the campaigns. I like characters though and don't really want to see them more diminished. To me, they give a lot of the fantasy element to the games.
721
Post by: BorderCountess
Too many of those 'changes' sound wish-listy. A number of them also seem to make the game more random (like the 2D6 power dice and the random charge moves). If I want a random army, I'll play Skaven or O&G.
I fail to see why the magic phase is getting so much attention. Sure, some armies are a little over the top, but wouldn't it be better to address those armies?
And the percentages seems outright wrong. For starters, the last time GW did that with WHFB, the percentages were listed in each book and they were all different: not all armies can viably do 25% Core (ie, all forms of Elves) or limit themselves to 25% Characters (ie, Warriors of Chaos, or ANYBODY RIDING A DRAGON)
Overall, a lot of those 'changes' make me cringe and feel like I'm looking at a completely different game, which is not a good thing.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
It fixed 40k. Maybe it'll fix Fantasy too
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
The cynic in me would have to suggest that the reason for the 25% character restriction is to make people buy more models for their army - 3-4 models making up half your points does not equal the sound of a GW cash register going ker-ching!!!!
Also, it now means that those people with the uber-characters riding dragons (or whatever) can only use them if they go and buy a crapton more RnF to fill up their army (1000points of characters - that means 3000 on other stuff!)
But having said all that, I think this is a genuinely good thing. I started with 3rd editon but never really bothered with 4th and 5th as it was just rock-paper-scissors with your heroes. 6th pulled me back in with the move away from herohammer, but 7th (more to do with the army books than the core rules, to be fair) has disillusioned me again.
If these rumours turn out to be true, the game will go back to being about the army, not the characters and I'm willing to give it one last try. If not, I'll have a load of Dwarfs for sale... 
4661
Post by: Minsc
Only going to touch on ones I haven't commented on in my megapost earlier:
Grimstonefire wrote:
More reliable rumours
[*]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.
[*]Autobreaking from fear or terror is gone.
1) I see little harm in how the rule stands right now, but it does bear potential for abuse depending on its actual set-up (if it's even there). 1 Attack / Model isn't too bad, but 1 Attack + Special Rules - or worse, full attacks w/ special rules - could easily muck things up. I can see this influencing games, but not being a game breaker.
2) I'm so-so about this, mainly because monsters are already a big thing in WHFB. Giving them even more hits seems like a way to make them even more unassailable. Could be a gamebreaker, but need more info first.
3) I can't honestly complain about this rule. I don't think there's many players who would complain that the 40mm base Ogres need a 120mm front to get a rank - it's still 20 more than 20mm models, and only five less than a 25mm model's front. It will influence a lot of games and lists, however. Would four-by-two Ogre units get +2 Combat Res (+1 for Rank, +1 for Additional Column)?
4) While a few objective-based scenarios are good (every game needs some variety), the rumors that they'll be the majority of the scenarios and require standards do not appeal to me. For some armies, it is - by its very nature - a gamebreaker as the army can't win any more sans a massacre of their opponent before the end of Turn 6 (Clan Eshin Skaven, Forest Spirit armies, several Skink lists, and so on). While in some cases (Skink & Stegadon-heavy lists) this is a good way to reduce "cheese", in others it's just kicking an army in the shins and capering off giggling at their misfortune.
5) If they're trying to tone down magic, why would they give Teclis the possibility of using up to 20 Power Dice in a single turn if fielded alone? Lord Kroak 14? This also looks like it's going to fit around the "3K Point Tournament" rumor, as it's an overkill in terms of dice for under that and a shortage for extremely large games wherein each side might be using dozens of wizards (of course, them having to plan for such a game isn't exactly a must).
6) I can both see why they would and why they shouldn't break this. On one hand, being outnumbered three-to-one by a Fear-causing unit should be terrifying. On the other, I don't think 25 Swordsmen are going to care that there's one more Zombie in the other unit than there are Swordsmen. Working fear to be akin to the old Outnumber bonus in 40K when it comes to combat resolution (Fear = +1 by Default, Terror +2, if they outnumber 2:1 it's another +1, outnumber 3:1 it's +2, and so on. Example being a fear causing unit outnumbers you three to one, they get +4 Combat Resolution as they outnumber (1), cause fear (1), and outnumber 3:1 (2))? Does anyone see a big problem with what I'm saying?
Grimstonefire wrote:Other rumours (and description of above)
These are all listed in no particular order.
ARMY SELECTION
[*]Army construction is moving back to percentages.
Edit. Just as I thought this part was looking certain, there have been some rumours/ sources saying 25% max characters, 25% min core, 50% max special and 15% max rare. I will edit one out as it become clear.
50% special would seem too much to me. I mean, I can understand giving more than only 25% (otherwise there'd be no difference between Special and Rare), but allowing 1,500pts of a 3K point game to be in special would just encourage some very nasty units to be fielded. It would do nothing to encourage using more than the minimal of core than the current edition (25% crammed into characters, 50% into Special, then the last 25% eeked out in Core).
Grimstonefire wrote:MAGIC
[*]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.
1) I'm not going to call it a gamebreaker (there's very few lists that're reliant on getting Irresistable Force castings), but it could cause some interesting changes. Need to see more details to judge.
2) How this would work I don't know. Mainly because something would have to be done to keep Irresistable (unless it's a Miscast-only possibility?), and without double-6's I can't think of something. Need 3 of a kind? Need to see more details to reach final conclusion.
3) Could be a gamebreaker, most likely just interesting changes. Need to see more details to judge.
4) This strongly discourages the 2D6 thing. Why? You would never field mages in anything under than Lord levels then. Could you imagine two Level 2 Wizards trying to put off 14 Power Dice in a single turn? Let alone whatever they couldn't use from the prior turn?
5) Do we need Mega-Spells? Really? I mean, I can see them for Special Characters and the like (that isn't something new), but giving every army the option to cast some "Yeah, your unit is dead, bye-bye" spell? Seems a bit much. Especially with how it'd work with stuff like Tomb Kings - would they be the only army that couldn't use the Mega Spells, and thus be at a major handicap?
6) Better just be a rumor, otherwise most Orc players will probably just take Bash 'em Ladz, Warpath, Fists, and Waaagh!. Goblins would pretty much always have Brain Bursta / Mork'll Fix It level 2's. I can see Tzeentch players having a field day with this as well.
Grimstonefire wrote:
[*]There's no limit to the number of dice used to cast a spell, by any level of caster.
[*]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.
1) Best not be the case. While it'd negate the "How can a Level 2 Wizard use up 7 dice in one turn?" problem, it would then open a whole slew of new problems. Chiefly, hoarding power dice to spam a Mega-Spell each turn, likely with some re-roll item to negate a second one should it pop up.
2) In the same turn, or the same game? Big difference, and I'd need to see the details. As with the above rule, however, it could be a nigh-gamebreaker.
3) Dispel Dice adding to the pool instead of dispelling does not look favorable to me for several reasons. Chiefly, +2 dice is pretty much a Level 1 Caster's spell. It'll tone down their effectiveness (and I never used them much anyways as I felt having a pile of 6 +1-to-dispel dice was better at 2K and under), but possibly too much ( IMO).
4) I can sorta see what's going on here, would need to see some details.
5) Multiple casters? Does that mean the more casters on the board equal more miscasts? Or are they hinting at "linking" wizards to cast spells? Need more details.
6) Mutually exclusive against one interpretation of #2 (Twice in the same turn), and similarly tones down the impact of many miscasts (ones that end the Caster's magic phase right there).
Grimstonefire wrote:COMBAT
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).
Another edit: Seems this Horde rule may work like this:
If the unit is 10+ wide and 5 ranks deep (50+ models) the front 2 ranks may all fight, regardless of whether they are in base contact. My guess is that this is using their regular weapons (not just a hand weapon), as it would explain how people have got up to 5 ranks in combat (2 front, Spears = 3, Citizen levy = 4, Horde = 5). At this stage just another rumour.
Mixed response from me. On one hand, I can see the reason to give a benefit to units that're 40 or 50 big (both from a business and gameplay standpoint). However, similarly, this could make them stupidly dangerous (block of Chaos Warriors w/ Ld 9 Lord, fighting in 2 Ranks, is Stubborn, and has +7 combat resolution for numbering 36 bringing their total base to 8 pre-magic banner or outnumber, as well as pre-wound). Need to see details for it before I can give a verdict.
Grimstonefire wrote:Rank bonuses
[*]A unit may still get up to +3 for being 5 wide. A new rumour is that they can get an additional rank bonus up to +4 for each additional model wide that they are. (awaiting confirmation, if this is true, on how it will work.
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
1) Could be game-breaking, sounds interesting. Need to hear more on it.
2) I am not fond of this, but I can also see why they'd remove it. While it makes sense to have some characters nigh-unkillable, that they can't combine saves would just render some wargear options pointless (an armor save that can never be reduced below a certain value, for instance, would ruin any need for a Ward Save). In return, it'd also cut down on stuff like characters with a 1+ save / 3+ ward combo or something akin.
And I can't work on my opinion on any other rumors ATM.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
I will point out i like the one save thing.
I play dark elves and even though i do it to be competitive, i think its incredibly cheesy to say this every time....
Ok 2+ armor but if that fails
Reverse ward, all i have to do is roll lower then the attacks strength, but if that fails
i have a 4+ regen save......
On a s4 attack that equals about a 3-4% chance for a hit to wound. Now the dreadlords WS is 7, so odds are you will only hit him with normal RnF on a 4+ so the real chance to actually do a wound on him is about 2 %.
I miss the days 6-7 years ago where it actually looked like an army on the table, now it looks like a dragon on the table, with 3-5 other small units.
And on to the magic phase....
I run at time a heavy magic DE list (lvl 4 sorc and 2 lvl 2 sorcs)
The other day i miscast my first spell of turn 2 or 3 and it ended my magic phase. That LOST me the game since my magic was completely devastating him. If you make the penalties larger you will hurt some of the magic reliant armies ( like DE) however the armies that have insane magic really wont be that effected.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
ShivanAngel wrote:I will point out i like the one save thing.
I miss the days 6-7 years ago where it actually looked like an army on the table, now it looks like a dragon on the table, with 3-5 other small units.
I've gone to a lot or tournies during 7th edition and the final tables always look like they are playing Warmachine. One mega-hero by himself or on a monster, a few small units and a handful of big stuff running around. While I'm still on he fence regarding most of these rumors anything that puts a hold on these silly 30-40 model armies would be really appreciated.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Ixquic wrote:ShivanAngel wrote:I will point out i like the one save thing.
I miss the days 6-7 years ago where it actually looked like an army on the table, now it looks like a dragon on the table, with 3-5 other small units.
I've gone to a lot or tournies during 7th edition and the final tables always look like they are playing Warmachine. One mega-hero by himself or on a monster, a few small units and a handful of big stuff running around. While I'm still on he fence regarding most of these rumors anything that puts a hold on these silly 30-40 model armies would be really appreciated.
Exactly haha, part of the reason i picked up skaven.
My 2250 dark elf list has maybe 50-60 models in it... It would be less if i made it super competitive but i want to sleep at night lol.
My skaven list has over 150 models! it may actually look like an army is rolling up!
236
Post by: Negativemoney
As far as the PDFs for the new armies go. I do believe that this is for the Spanish army books only. This is due the Spanish rulebooks being written with metric measurement units. The PDFs are to align them to the Imperial Measurement system that is used in all the other books.
8330
Post by: kestral
Bah! GW should be converting everything to metric, not the other way around.
Its hard to imagine going to only one save and striking in initiative order without new army books - it makes so much completely out of whack in the current books.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
kestral wrote:Bah! GW should be converting everything to metric, not the other way around.
Its hard to imagine going to only one save and striking in initiative order without new army books - it makes so much completely out of whack in the current books.
This is why there is a rumor flying around that all the armies rulebooks (except beasts, cause it was written with 8th in mind) will be redone within a year of 8th's release.
6084
Post by: theHandofGork
kestral wrote:Bah! GW should be converting everything to metric, not the other way around.
Rick Priestly had an interview with some wargaming magazine recently in which he opined that the unit of measurement used in a game was a method of establishing atmosphere. He reckoned that metric was better suited to sci-fi, or even hard-fi, while imperial was more suited to fantasy and historical.
9883
Post by: Cyporiean
ShivanAngel wrote:kestral wrote:Bah! GW should be converting everything to metric, not the other way around.
Its hard to imagine going to only one save and striking in initiative order without new army books - it makes so much completely out of whack in the current books.
This is why there is a rumor flying around that all the armies rulebooks (except beasts, cause it was written with 8th in mind) will be redone within a year of 8th's release.
Because people are incapable of reading, and are spreading false information.
All of the books (aside from like 5) are being reprinted in Spain and only in SPAIN, because they are getting the measurement change.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Yeah I don't know what company those people have been buying models from but if they seriously believe that GW is going to get out the new updates for all armies in a timely fashion (or even before 9th in four years) they are in for a surprise.
9892
Post by: Flashman
You know I almost spent £35 on a Screaming Bell the other day. The rumour about 25% on characters popped into my head and a quick calculation made me realise that I couldn't field it in 2000pts unless it was my only character (Grey Seer and Bell = 440pts). Even in 3000pts, I could only feasibly have another two characters (lets say a Warlock and Chieftain including magic items).
I am becoming increasingly dubious about this rumour or at least the mooted % amount.
In the meantime however, no Screaming Bell for me and no £35 for GW.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Flashman wrote:You know I almost spent £35 on a Screaming Bell the other day. The rumour about 25% on characters popped into my head and a quick calculation made me realise that I couldn't field it in 2000pts unless it was my only character (Grey Seer and Bell = 440pts). Even in 3000pts, I could only feasibly have another two characters (lets say a Warlock and Chieftain including magic items).
I am becoming increasingly dubious about this rumour or at least the mooted % amount.
In the meantime however, no Screaming Bell for me and no £35 for GW.
Yeah im starting to think mounts wont count for that 25%, OR an errata or something will be put out making them take up special choice or something. For skaven especially it just doesnt make sense.
24035
Post by: Ostrakon
Not that I really know anything about WFB, but why would GW add (or revert back to) a rule that would require printing errata for nearly every army book? Not to mention that those books may or may not have been balanced according to the new system.
I mean, in 40k certain rules or properties get invalidated, but I don't see why they'd do something that affects the contents of every book.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
ShivanAngel wrote:Flashman wrote:You know I almost spent £35 on a Screaming Bell the other day. The rumour about 25% on characters popped into my head and a quick calculation made me realise that I couldn't field it in 2000pts unless it was my only character (Grey Seer and Bell = 440pts). Even in 3000pts, I could only feasibly have another two characters (lets say a Warlock and Chieftain including magic items).
I am becoming increasingly dubious about this rumour or at least the mooted % amount.
In the meantime however, no Screaming Bell for me and no £35 for GW.
Yeah im starting to think mounts wont count for that 25%, OR an errata or something will be put out making them take up special choice or something. For skaven especially it just doesnt make sense.
I think they will have to count for the hero percentage since otherwise the ridiculous Lizardmen lists consisting of 90% heroes will be unaffected and thus still be broken. I'm thinking a 50% character cap will be more likely and curb some lists while not making other impossible dreams.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Ixquic wrote:ShivanAngel wrote:Flashman wrote:You know I almost spent £35 on a Screaming Bell the other day. The rumour about 25% on characters popped into my head and a quick calculation made me realise that I couldn't field it in 2000pts unless it was my only character (Grey Seer and Bell = 440pts). Even in 3000pts, I could only feasibly have another two characters (lets say a Warlock and Chieftain including magic items).
I am becoming increasingly dubious about this rumour or at least the mooted % amount.
In the meantime however, no Screaming Bell for me and no £35 for GW.
Yeah im starting to think mounts wont count for that 25%, OR an errata or something will be put out making them take up special choice or something. For skaven especially it just doesnt make sense.
I think they will have to count for the hero percentage since otherwise the ridiculous Lizardmen lists consisting of 90% heroes will be unaffected and thus still be broken. I'm thinking a 50% character cap will be more likely and curb some lists while not making other impossible dreams.
I agree that 50% lord/hero's would be a little more likely.
However from what i have heard in the rumor mill is that they want to get away from hero hammer. The 700 point lord on dragon charging a unit of infaltry and killing them all. I Honestly wouldnt mind seeing the super mounts (dragons) being unable to be taken in games less than 2500 points. But thats me.
20448
Post by: boogeyman
ShivanAngel wrote:Ixquic wrote:ShivanAngel wrote:I will point out i like the one save thing.
I miss the days 6-7 years ago where it actually looked like an army on the table, now it looks like a dragon on the table, with 3-5 other small units.
I've gone to a lot or tournies during 7th edition and the final tables always look like they are playing Warmachine. One mega-hero by himself or on a monster, a few small units and a handful of big stuff running around. While I'm still on he fence regarding most of these rumors anything that puts a hold on these silly 30-40 model armies would be really appreciated.
Exactly haha, part of the reason i picked up skaven.
My 2250 dark elf list has maybe 50-60 models in it... It would be less if i made it super competitive but i want to sleep at night lol.
My skaven list has over 150 models! it may actually look like an army is rolling up!
And out of those 150 models, how many are actually used for fighting? Are they just mainly fodder, something to fill up the board? Why not just put more terrain there then, that slows up the enemy just as much? Don't get me wrong, I like the look of a huge army. That image of the waves and waves of models attacking the castle in the 8th ed. preview was epic.
Flashman wrote:You know I almost spent £35 on a Screaming Bell the other day. The rumour about 25% on characters popped into my head and a quick calculation made me realise that I couldn't field it in 2000pts unless it was my only character (Grey Seer and Bell = 440pts). Even in 3000pts, I could only feasibly have another two characters (lets say a Warlock and Chieftain including magic items).
I am becoming increasingly dubious about this rumour or at least the mooted % amount.
In the meantime however, no Screaming Bell for me and no £35 for GW.
I am having the same exact thoughts, although not for the screaming bell.
I hope to be able to field my monster themed DE list.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
about 90 of them, only 60ish are slaves used to take fire.
HOWEVER it still looks cool!
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
"That image of the waves and waves of models attacking the castle in the 8th ed. preview was epic."
Agreed but it's nowt more than eye candy
21678
Post by: Karon
I seriously doubt %'s are coming back..it would ruin TONS and TONS of armies. It would make some lists illegal (or rather, most of them)
I just...don't see it. It would be such a complete DICK move by GW.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Karon wrote:I seriously doubt %'s are coming back..it would ruin TONS and TONS of armies. It would make some lists illegal (or rather, most of them)
I just...don't see it. It would be such a complete DICK move by GW.
It wouldnt make armies useless. Just instead of spending 900 points in characters per game, you might actually have to field more then the 3 minimum core units.....
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
ShivanAngel wrote:Karon wrote:I seriously doubt %'s are coming back..it would ruin TONS and TONS of armies. It would make some lists illegal (or rather, most of them)
I just...don't see it. It would be such a complete DICK move by GW.
It wouldnt make armies useless. Just instead of spending 900 points in characters per game, you might actually have to field more then the 3 minimum core units.....
Zing!
Also, the way the game is changing may make your army invalid anyways. They've already mentioned sweeping changes.
So here's a spoiler. You'll be changing your list.
26407
Post by: Bloodwin
kestral wrote:Bah! GW should be converting everything to metric, not the other way around.
Its hard to imagine going to only one save and striking in initiative order without new army books - it makes so much completely out of whack in the current books.
So multiply everything by 2.5  I prefer inches because it's what I am used to on the table top. Sure for everything else I use cm. It's already hard enough and an important part of tactics to be able to estimate your move distance in tournament play (I don't give a frag at home and will happily measure and move back and forth - if both players do it's fair). But yes if you are used to thinking in inches then to have bigger numbers being chucked around in cm would be rather difficult. Also if the rules are designed in inches then they may pick distances that are hard to express in cm as they may have to resort to mm. Funny though because I always think of the bases for the models in mm, even the miniatures were referred to as 28mm scale. I guess that's what you get from having games designed by people used to using both measurement systems. I don't like the idea of 'units of measurement' for our European friends I know the EU gets it's knickers in a twist but just call it what it is, especially as those measuring sticks are so prone to warping and inconsistency.
207
Post by: Balance
Scottywan82 wrote:
Also, the way the game is changing may make your army invalid anyways. They've already mentioned sweeping changes.
So here's a spoiler. You'll be changing your list.
For 40k, i remember the 3rd->4th change being promoted as "No Codex will be obsoleted, your army will still be valid."
Sure, your army was valid, but they didn't say competitive or fun to play.
This sounds a step worse. Your army book will still be usable, but some army construction rules will be different, so you may need to add different units.
At least they're being up front about it.
21678
Post by: Karon
So, that's not what I'm talking about. With the %'s, I won't be able to take my two rare monsters, won't be able to take my characters, won't actually be able to take all my CORE either (hurr durr minimum requirement, kiss my ass), but probably my special.
Just pisses me off, they're going to STREAMLINE builds this way, you won't be able to take whatever you want. Its just bs.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Karon wrote:So, that's not what I'm talking about. With the %'s, I won't be able to take my two rare monsters, won't be able to take my characters, won't actually be able to take all my CORE either (hurr durr minimum requirement, kiss my ass), but probably my special.
Just pisses me off, they're going to STREAMLINE builds this way, you won't be able to take whatever you want. Its just bs.
Has core ever had a maximum on it? Always thought core had to be AT LEAST X points with no limit.
People are going to react differently to the changes. I for one like hero's being restricted. Im looking forwared to seeing an ARMY on the table. Not a guy on a dragon, a dude on a horse, 2 cannons, and 3 units of infantry.
8745
Post by: Llamahead
I'm going to put a bet on either 275 or 550 being the limit for Rare choices in 2000pts can anybody guess why?
A lot of these rules seem to be intriguing and for people complaining about changes in list its nowhere near as harsh as 5th/6th Fantasy and 2nd/3rd 40k personally I'm hoping for something like 4th/5th a simplification and streamlining......Unfortunately this seems to be making it even more complicated!
9892
Post by: Flashman
Email to GW. Do you think they'll bite?
Flashman wrote:Hello,
As you are no doubt aware, the announcement of Warhammer 8th Edition has led to frenzied internet speculation regarding the new rules. One of the more persistent rumours is that of a return to percentages for army selections (i.e. max 25% on characters, min 25% core, max 25% special etc).
I currently would like to round out my 2000 point Skaven army with a Sreaming Bell, but the mooted 25% restriction on Characters would make its inclusion in my army list unworkable.
I'm fairly certain that GW would not want to restrict gamers in this manner. Could you confirm this rumour is nonsense, so that I can make my purchase in confidence
Regards
8745
Post by: Llamahead
I reckon they'll tell you to buy it anyway you can always use it in larger games and should give them your money regardless.......
11923
Post by: Specs
Llamahead wrote:I'm going to put a bet on either 275 or 550 being the limit for Rare choices in 2000pts can anybody guess why?
A lot of these rules seem to be intriguing and for people complaining about changes in list its nowhere near as harsh as 5th/6th Fantasy and 2nd/3rd 40k personally I'm hoping for something like 4th/5th a simplification and streamlining......Unfortunately this seems to be making it even more complicated!
I think you're on to something, but I'd put my bet on 500. If 275 is the new standard price of the new big monsters, like in Beastmen, you can take one and still have some warmachines, but you won't be able to take two.
This is not a rumour, just my speculation.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Llamahead wrote:I reckon they'll tell you to buy it anyway you can always use it in larger games and should give them your money regardless.......
My guess at the response will something like, " We cannot comment on games development, but can assure you of our commitment to offer support for all of our products." 
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
Manfred von Drakken wrote:And the percentages seems outright wrong. For starters, the last time GW did that with WHFB, the percentages were listed in each book and they were all different: not all armies can viably do 25% Core (ie, all forms of Elves) or limit themselves to 25% Characters (ie, Warriors of Chaos, or ANYBODY RIDING A DRAGON)
Overall, a lot of those 'changes' make me cringe and feel like I'm looking at a completely different game, which is not a good thing.
+1 on not feeling happy or confident about the changes. Thanks goodness BA just came out as I'm going back to 40k after a 4 year hiatus.
I was building a HE army but I've put it all on hold unitil I can work out what will be needed for a fuctioning army (also with the new models in the base game box set will it be worth buying any more archers or spears, hopefully they will look something like the models I've bought in the last year)
Its hard enough buying what is needed for a 2000 or 2250 point army, let alone the new benchmark of 3000 points.
Also my lizardmen will be able to take a SMP at 2000 points, and no other characters.
Or a Skink priest on an EOG and a naked priest.
Seems pretty harsh....
7597
Post by: Kirbinator
25% characters is pretty harsh if you are relying on a dragon-mounted character or EoG + Slaan to carry the weight of your army. I'm not sure about you guys, but while I do enjoy a large scary monster or three on the field, running up against the double Engine + Slaan Lizards isn't much fun and is grossly disproportionate. When going from a 1500 point game to a 2250 point game means adding one or two characters, it's pretty dumb and deserves a good looking at.
21678
Post by: Karon
Not with percentages though, NOT this way.
I like to have my Beastlord, BSB, AND Shaman, they take up more than 25% of my list I believe (barely, by maybe 25 points) because they're a big part of keeping it together.
I really hope a lot of these rumors ARE exactly that: rumors.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Everything Ive heard points to 50%.. we'll see in a few months
721
Post by: BorderCountess
Kirbinator wrote:25% characters is pretty harsh if you are relying on a dragon-mounted character or EoG + Slaan to carry the weight of your army. I'm not sure about you guys, but while I do enjoy a large scary monster or three on the field, running up against the double Engine + Slaan Lizards isn't much fun and is grossly disproportionate. When going from a 1500 point game to a 2250 point game means adding one or two characters, it's pretty dumb and deserves a good looking at.
Hence I propose that the correct solution is to fix the book in question, not the game. Add a rule that you can only take one Engine of the Gods for every 2000 points of your army; fixed! No abusing small armies with it since you can't field it at 1500 points, and you get ONE at tournament play.
I don't think the problem is necessarily with the game - I think it's with the PLAYERS. I'm quite capable of playing a decent-sized game with blocks and a variety of troops - I do have an Empire army. But somewhere along the line the players took this uber-competitive mentality to win at all costs and stopped having fun. If you're not going to enjoy the game, why the hell are you playing?
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
OK, I'll throw my $0.02 in before this turns into the inevitable competitive vs casual flamewar...
Obviously, 'casual' players are less affected by these rule changes (and some may work in their favour as such players are less likely to have optimised character/monster heavy lists) but this is ALWAYS the case.
Every time GW changes its core rules it has a bigger effect on those who play competitively than those who don't but this is due largely to the practices of GW's design studio - it goes like this.
Current Rules
Codex creep from each successive dex/army book changes the metagame
Current Rules become unable to cope with the meta
Reboot to new rules to nerf the top-end of the meta and refocus the game to its original intent (generally lots of grunts is better than fewer hard-as models is the philosophy).
Rinse and repeat.
Why are people acting surprised and getting their knickers in a knot about it? Its not as if we haven't seen this before. In fantasy 5th-6th was a major transition away from herohammer, but the army books from 6th and 7th editions have pushed it back towards herohammer/monsterhammer.
Rather than fixing the army books, they redo the core rules again to push the focus back and guess what! over the course of the 8th and probably 9th editions successive idiots will write new books with exemptions, loopholes and a general power creep until we have to reboot again. This is simply the way that GW works.
Now, I know that people will be upset that their particular build/concept will be invalidated but that will not change the way GW operates. You either have to grit your teeth and live with it, play older rulesets outwith the 'official' circuit, or give up altogether.
Personally, I'm quite excited about these rumours but that is merely because my personal preference lies with the game being more about the units and less about the characters/monsters but I can fully understand why people who prefer the opposite approach will be upset.
In any event, we all know that not all of these rumours will turn out to be true and we will all get blindsided by stuff that's in the book that has never been rumoured. I'm just going to wait until release day and see whether the game has moved in a direction I like. If so I'll get back into it. If not, does anyone want any dwarfs...?
24035
Post by: Ostrakon
It still affects casual players, although not more than any other edition.
Casual A finds unit Casual B has trouble dealing with without making significant changes to list.
Casual B, being a casual player, doesn't spend the time/effort to figure out how to deal with it.
Casual B blames rules/armybook/new edition for Casual A's god-unit.
I think the problem is that casual players shouldn't really be expected to adapt. Competitive players really have no right to complain though: all a new edition does is shift the metagame (albeit by a huge amount). Wouldn't be the first time a competitive player had to adapt to a metagame. Unless, of course, something grossly unjust happens and an entire army gets invalidated, then it's a significant problem for everyone.
9892
Post by: Flashman
We have a response! Not a very revealing one though...
GW wrote:Hi there
I imagine as a gamer you will have many options to include in your cool skaven army and things like this will not be a problem. The 25% mark seems a little plucked out of the air and high lights the foolishness of rumors.
And that at the moment is all these are about the new rules, rumors. As we our selves have not yet seen the rules or have them we are unable to say or confirm/deny anything.
We are in the position of just having to wait and see like everyone else.
Sorry I could not be of more help.
Paul S
For those who didn't see it, my email read as follows...
Flashman wrote:Hello,
As you are no doubt aware, the announcement of Warhammer 8th Edition has led to frenzied internet speculation regarding the new rules. One of the more persistent rumours is that of a return to percentages for army selections (i.e. max 25% on characters, min 25% core, max 25% special etc).
I currently would like to round out my 2000 point Skaven army with a Screaming Bell, but the mooted 25% restriction on Characters would make its inclusion in my army list unworkable.
I'm fairly certain that GW would not want to restrict gamers in this manner. Could you confirm this rumour is nonsense, so that I can make my purchase in confidence
Regards
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
Was the guy who replied 12?
Quite apart from the grammatical and spelling errors, I'm sure flash was delighted to hear his Skaven army was 'cool'. 
Basically it boiled down to 'buy it anyway', which is hardly unexpected but still disappointing.
P.S. - I have far more confidence that flashman's Skaven are cool than I have in GWs communication skills...
5394
Post by: reds8n
Flashman wrote:
I am becoming increasingly dubious about this rumour or at least the mooted % amount.
.
I agree the amount is still up in the air, I would say the % in general idea is pretty much 101% solid.
IMO of course.
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
Just a random thought - one of the rumours is that more terrain will be encouraged in WFB8.
Is it coincidence that this month's WD has the first teaser advert for WFB8 and a Standard Bearer article all about how cool GW's terrain is and how terrain can help shape the narrative of a battle?
Maybe its just me being cynical.
Again
9892
Post by: Flashman
Chimera_Calvin wrote:Was the guy who replied 12?
Quite apart from the grammatical and spelling errors, I'm sure flash was delighted to hear his Skaven army was 'cool'.
Basically it boiled down to 'buy it anyway', which is hardly unexpected but still disappointing.
P.S. - I have far more confidence that flashman's Skaven are cool than I have in GWs communication skills...
Yes, I was a bit stumped as to how Paul S (aged 12 and 3/4) was able to assign the cool factor to an army he has never seen. As it happens, it is pretty cool, but this is more reflective of Skaven in general rather than any painting and modelling on my part
18277
Post by: Khornholio
"Cool" terrain will be allowed up to 10% of your army list. Place it wisely.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Coming back to characters and percentages. If this is implemented (and I think we need to be talking at a rate of 40-50% for it to work), will the other character limitations be dropped? (e.g. 0-4 heroes in 2000pts).
I've always thought that the limits on heroes have always served low numbered, elite armies quite well (Chaos, Lizardmen, High Elves etc), but in horde armies, those 4 heroes start to look pretty isolated!
Another sudden random thought is that higher percentages for characters don't kick in until you get to the higher points, preventing Heroes from dominating smaller games.
So maybe, something like this...
0-1000pts = 25% Heroes, No Lords
1000-2000pts = 50% Heroes, 1 Lord
2000-3000pts = 50% Heroes, 2 Lords
17836
Post by: Ixquic
I think the initial reason for the limit was so that armies with cheaper heroes couldn't spam stuff like power or dispel dice. However if the new system has armies generating most of the dice per magic phase this shouldn't be an issue. I think percentages are much more overall balanced than havng a hard four character allowance because some armies have inherently better stuff.
3809
Post by: Zad Fnark
Any ideal if percentages will be the same across all armies? As it is now, I believe Brettonians have a slightly different Lord/Hero allocation amount for a given number of points. I don't know offhand if any other armies vary.
ZF-
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Chimera_Calvin wrote:Just a random thought - one of the rumours is that more terrain will be encouraged in WFB8.
Is it coincidence that this month's WD has the first teaser advert for WFB8 and a Standard Bearer article all about how cool GW's terrain is and how terrain can help shape the narrative of a battle?
Maybe its just me being cynical.
Again
I really like this rumor tbh. Our group plays with lots of terrain anyway (6+ pieces) so it wont make that much of a difference for us. I think it just adds another strategic element to the game.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Zad Fnark wrote:Any ideal if percentages will be the same across all armies? As it is now, I believe Brettonians have a slightly different Lord/Hero allocation amount for a given number of points. I don't know offhand if any other armies vary.
ZF-
The other notable is example High Elves, who get more Special and Rare options with a reduction in Core requirement to emphasise their elite nature.
I have no idea if this will extend to the percentages (if indeed percentages happen).
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
One option could be that both restrictions could remain in place.
So in a 2000pt Bretonnian army you could have 5 characters totalling no more than 500pts whilst other armies would have a max of 4 characters to the same pv?
Probably a bit far-fetched but you never know.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
You are more than welcome to join us at Cynics Anonymous Calvin
Patronising statements about how cool stuff is is standard GWspeak
Hey by the way I am down with the kids too!
Just a thought.
Would the allownce of a greater percentage of characters allow for more diversity in the gaming?
If the maximum is 50% it does not mean that it is compulsary. As long as everyone with a particular army doesn't follow suit of course.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
The thing thats getting me on the percentages thing, is that individual army codex's have been what determines how many of what you can take. So unless they say "ignore that" they will have to put a value for each army.
666
Post by: Necros
Manfred von Drakken wrote:I don't think the problem is necessarily with the game - I think it's with the PLAYERS. I'm quite capable of playing a decent-sized game with blocks and a variety of troops - I do have an Empire army. But somewhere along the line the players took this uber-competitive mentality to win at all costs and stopped having fun. If you're not going to enjoy the game, why the hell are you playing?
QFT x27!
236
Post by: Negativemoney
25% in characters is a little to restrictive given the current points cost of each individual character at the current time. In general I like to filed, a combat lord, lvl2 wizard and a BSB. With a 25% points restriction that will make balancing out your characters very difficult. I could see 50% a definite reality but 35% seems more likely for them to pick if they do decide to go the percentage route.
I don't think GW wants to shoot them selves in the foot when it comes to selling kits such as the High Elf Lord on a Dragon, or the Screaming Bell/Plague Furnace kit. Look for something closer to 50% as it seems more realistic.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Back in Ye Olden Days of percentage based list construction it was army dependent. Bretonnians had a 75% cap on characters instead of the usual 50%. Other armies had greater or less depending on the style of army. If they bring back that sort of system I would hope they would take that into account since it's a big deal and books designed for a different system aren't just going to magically fall into place when they radically shift things around.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Ixquic wrote:Back in Ye Olden Days of percentage based list construction it was army dependent. Bretonnians had a 75% cap on characters instead of the usual 50%. Other armies had greater or less depending on the style of army. If they bring back that sort of system I would hope they would take that into account since it's a big deal and books designed for a different system aren't just going to magically fall into place when they radically shift things around.
Thank you! I was literally about to type this out. Assuming the same %s across all armies is a little unlikely considering how they alter the minimums and maximums now, and altered the %s back when they were used.
4298
Post by: Spellbound
A character limit of 25% wouldn't affect my WoC too much. Lately I've stopped taking so many characters [though admittedly the limit would make my standard lord + BSB invalid, which kind of sucks] and just taken more and more basic troops, because I've found basic chaos warriors can, sometimes, actually win combat. Just make sure you roll well!
What it'll screw though is my VC. My armies, at any points level, end up being almost 50% vampires. It's not uber S7 red fury 1200 attacks that auto hit insanity, it's just vampires. Skeleton-summoning, magic-casting naked vampires. That's how I like to play. The army is "Vampire Counts" not "Undead Horde". The flavor and coolness of the army is in the vampires, not their minions. I'll be very disappointed if they limit characters to 25%.
What might be better, and I don't think anyone's thought about it much, is 25% per category of character. It's almost as though everyone's forgotten that there's two categories of characters! While they list off special, core, and rare they forget that it's separate hero and lord categories. Would things be so bad if it was limited to 25% lords and 25% heroes? In a 2000 point game that still allows a powerful lord or special character [though not on a dragon] and 2-3 weaker hero characters. That's....pretty much how it is now.
25% per character catagory seems to make more sense to me - though I know some people like to go all-hero with no lords, and that will hurt them a bit.
666
Post by: Necros
It's how it is with any update, some armies just get screwed in the rump.
Tomb Kings will get hit hard too, you need lots of characters to make the army work at all. Glad I sold mine
I don't see GW redoing every book all the sudden unless they treat it like 3rd ed for 40k where they had army lists for everything in the back of the book to hold you over till you got your new codex. Maybe that's why it's 500 pages?
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
They're not redoing any of the books. Unless you live in Spain.
8288
Post by: Rated G
Necros wrote:Manfred von Drakken wrote:I don't think the problem is necessarily with the game - I think it's with the PLAYERS. I'm quite capable of playing a decent-sized game with blocks and a variety of troops - I do have an Empire army. But somewhere along the line the players took this uber-competitive mentality to win at all costs and stopped having fun. If you're not going to enjoy the game, why the hell are you playing?
QFT x27!
Yawn.
I had no idea fun and uber-competitive were mutually exclusive terms. Some people actually enjoy *gasp* taking 2 Engines and a Slann for a number of reasons, least of which being it's combat potential. It looks stinking cool!
I can understand the frustration with that setup though, since it has totally dominated the tournament scene...oh wait...
The correct solution is not to arbitrarily limit units you do not like. The correct solution is to adapt. Upon saying that, I concede that some armies are more difficult to adapt to. Daemons? Well, we're all SoL there. 2 Engines and Slann? Tough nut to crack, but quite doable. I'll be playing against daemons tonight. Not necessarily excited about, but I'm gonna do what I can.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
The tournament scene dictates a lot of play outside of it. If there is a list that is very unbalanced, regular players will either figure it out themselves or read about it on the internet. I know some people think it's cool to paint up a themed force then lose 90% of their games but most people want to win at least some of the time and will take the best stuff the achieve that. It's the game designer's job to make sure that there is nothing so broken in their product so that you can just pick up an I win card and play it against most of your opponents. What happens is that these super lists start showing up outside tournies in regular pick up games, people get their own armies trounced since the game was lost before it started, the losers figure that if they want to win they need similar lists or quit and then you see the same armies in stores all the time. I am the only person at my local GW that still regularly plays Ogres or Orcs and one of like three that has a Wood Elf army. They's just no point to bring them out unless you don't care about winning or can control what type of army you are playing against. It's all well and good to say "play against like minded people" but those sorts are becoming more and more dissatisfied with the hobby. In my area they just stopped bothering since most of the time they couldn't find an army that wasn't some tournie test run and it just wasn't worth the time.
What I'm getting at is "blame the players, not the designers" is stupid. Players are always going to try and use the rules to win and the type of person that will tie his hand behind his own back is rare and the concept of what is "fair" is incredibly relative to the person you ask anyway. What needs to happen is the designer needs to make a tight rule set which both casual people can play and have fun with but isn't open to serious abuse. GW has given us the attitude for so long that sort of concept is impossible that people have started to believe it but that's a load of bull and just an excuse they use. I'm hoping that 8th edition is the system that accomplishes this and the fact that they are changing up some rules so massively is a sign to me that they at least are acknowledging the problems.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
I agree that it is fun to win, but doing so over and over with a power gaming list can get boring (at least for me).
Thats why i picked up a skaven army and made a list that rolls over 8 artillery dice a turn! It doesnt win that often but by the end of the game me and my opponent plus anyone watching are usually in tears from laughing.
661
Post by: Leggy
Flashman wrote:Chimera_Calvin wrote:Was the guy who replied 12?
Quite apart from the grammatical and spelling errors, I'm sure flash was delighted to hear his Skaven army was 'cool'.
Basically it boiled down to 'buy it anyway', which is hardly unexpected but still disappointing.
P.S. - I have far more confidence that flashman's Skaven are cool than I have in GWs communication skills...
Yes, I was a bit stumped as to how Paul S (aged 12 and 3/4) was able to assign the cool factor to an army he has never seen. As it happens, it is pretty cool, but this is more reflective of Skaven in general rather than any painting and modelling on my part
If Paul S is Paul Sawyer, then at one time he was the editor of White Dwarf. Which explains the typo's
5394
Post by: reds8n
Paul Sawyer doesn't worl for GW at all anymore, he's one of the founders of Warlord Games.
4661
Post by: Minsc
I'm upset at the rules and not a competitive player. I can work my army around pretty much any rule change, probably (I have 100 NG's, 50 Orcs with the same weapon, 50 BOrcs, 30 Spider Riders, 10 Wolf Riders, 8 Trolls, 4 Boar Bosses, gak knows how many infantry Bosses, 3 Shamans on foot, another mounted, and so on).
However, that doesn't mean I am tolerable of the changes any less. For instance, Terrain. This means a huge modification to how Terrain functions in the current game. For starters, it's no longer going to be a movement sucker for non-skirmishers. This removes some unit and banner special rules, or negates how much a bonus they really give. More often than not, the units that can go through the terrain sans penalty were either avoiding it (fliers going over), or weren't cheesy units anyways. To go on with it, D6+whatever pieces of terrain would imply a drastic change to LoS rules too. This in turn leads to chain reactions, such as mucking up Scout - will Scout become Infiltrate for WHFB, or - worse - outflank?
Rumors that, while at first seem to be "who cares", imply changes on a much larger scale. The increase of terrain pieces for instance brings questioning to LoS, Movement, Scouting, and so on.
One possible solution is they might implement the "loose formation" thing or whatever from the Lustria book. I doubt it, but it's possible. Now, if they did that it wouldn't modify LoS or Movement much. However, in this case Scouting - assuming no rule changes - just became much harder to counter. Scouts have been given a better playing field in this scenario.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Warhammer has needed a vastly superior terrain system for over a decade.. Whatever they do it has to be better than "line up in the middle, put terrain on the sides.. oh i get a hill"
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
since ihave gotten back into warhammer i am working on a few scenarios since the game really seems to be lacking those. Plan to post them once i get them a little more, complete.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Kirasu wrote:Warhammer has needed a vastly superior terrain system for over a decade.. Whatever they do it has to be better than "line up in the middle, put terrain on the sides.. oh i get a hill"
Yeah every game looks the same so if they make us take more terrain, but going into a forest doesn't remove you from the game since you're now trucking at 2" a turn it would be great.
4661
Post by: Minsc
Kirasu wrote:Warhammer has needed a vastly superior terrain system for over a decade.. Whatever they do it has to be better than "line up in the middle, put terrain on the sides.. oh i get a hill"
Or you could, I 'unno, set it up to deny a horde army from overrunning your flanks five seconds in?
Terrain isn't just a "set to side", at least in my shop. 'Course, some of the players might be dicks (Forest right in someone's deployment zone, for instance, when they're a horde all-regiment army), but for the most part terrain is used for more than making a table look pretty.
Furthermore, changing it from D3+2 to D6+4 is an easy +0 (assuming you rolled a 5 / 6 for the D3 and a 1 for the D6) to +7 more pieces of terrain. On average, 3.5 extra pieces of terrain are on the board. As stated, unless you are changing / implementing several new rules, this is going to make some hefty changes to the game. 5 pieces of terrain even if only 6" bubbles in diameter is pretty big in WHFB terms: 10 of them is just cruel.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Minsc wrote:Furthermore, changing it from D3+2 to D6+4
On average, 3.5 extra pieces of terrain are on the board.
5 pieces of terrain even if only 6" bubbles in diameter is pretty big in WHFB terms: 10 of them is just cruel.
Doubling from 5 to 10 pieces of Terrain means that players need to buy a total of 10 pieces of Terrain, at least 5 more pieces than what they currently own.
I suspect GW will have new Terrain kits available for purchase as part of the 8E release.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Is this a problem for competitions- I assume Tourneys supply terrain for the tables?
Making terrain is part of the fun for me- well, getting the bright idea to start yet another piece always seems like a good idea at the time- before it gets added to the "to do" pile 
It is noticable that the old GW website had some good terrain building pages, but can't find them on the current site. Don't know why they were dropped.
11923
Post by: Specs
If you look back at ancient and medieval battle most took place on a relatively flat field. Even the ones that did feature terrain prominently it wasn't really a complex setup. For example, Agincourt was on a field with forests on either side of the English lines (sound familiar?). Hastings was on a long hill slope, the battle of Stirling Bridge featured a river and a bridge (obviously), etc... I think these kind of battles are represented well by the current terrain rules. It's not like a 40k or modern game where both sides are trying to shoot at each other from cover.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Necros wrote:Manfred von Drakken wrote:I don't think the problem is necessarily with the game - I think it's with the PLAYERS. I'm quite capable of playing a decent-sized game with blocks and a variety of troops - I do have an Empire army. But somewhere along the line the players took this uber-competitive mentality to win at all costs and stopped having fun. If you're not going to enjoy the game, why the hell are you playing?
QFT x27!
add me to this. I always imagined this game to be huge blocks of troops. Surely the easiest fix is just to bump up the core requirement and the troop size per unit. I also think every unit should have a standard and a champion - they shouldn't be options.
I liked how the previous 2 editions moved away from hero hammer where you would see an undead army with one block of skellies. This recent set of army books seems have made troops cheaper but heroes/ lords even more essential.
I think this game should be more like historicals but with a flavor of fantasy and magic - magic should be a fun element but an additional tactical use not a game winner if someone can be shut down in the magic phase. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kirasu wrote:Warhammer has needed a vastly superior terrain system for over a decade.. Whatever they do it has to be better than "line up in the middle, put terrain on the sides.. oh and btw i NEED a hill for my {insert range weapon}"
Changed it for you to make you imaginary conversation more realistic.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
Updated the first post. Changes in green.
5534
Post by: dogma
The absence of "chargers strike first" would be a massive change. Perhaps a shift towards a model similar to assault in which chargers gain additional attacks? That could explain the rumors of impact hits for chargers.
9594
Post by: RiTides
I've got high initiative models, so I'd love that one...
Still concerned about needing banner to capture objectives! I hope it's not so!
The percentages are what's intruiging me... I know I need to get a little bit more core, but the possibility of only 15% rare is interesting... although I'm somewhat doubting that as that is really rare! I do hope special is up to 50%... we need some flexibility...!
23204
Post by: ginger_nid_dude
If there's still uncertainty about the begginer box, high elves and skaven were missing from the WW gallery today
721
Post by: BorderCountess
The idea of combat going strictly in Initiative order sounds bad. Some units have little hope of ever doing much in combat unless they get the charge, and this is only going to make things worse.
Amusingly, the armies that get hosed the most by this are Orcs and Dwarfs, both of whom already tend to do badly.
21678
Post by: Karon
You forget beastmen, who almost NEED the charge to survive, with no armour, they drop like flies to a strong breeze, T4 or no.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Initiative based first strike only makes sense if both armies are haring towards each other.
Which is fine in real time but turn based gaming am not so sure about.
If the premise of charging in WHFB is that one army attacks and the other defends, it is entirely counter-intuitive that defending troops bracing themselves for the impact of the onslaught should strike first.
4661
Post by: Minsc
If charges become initiative only and that actually is confirmed, my Orcs are done. I mean, done. Disregard "oh you're just whining" talk: They're I2, W1, T4, 6+ save models. For several armies, people's rank and fodder are striking faster than my Lords. The same goes for Beastmen and Ogres (the later of which would be better off than the former two, but is still in trouble).
This is very bad for those armed with Great Weapons too, as now they're always going last and - usually being sans the +2 they could get with HW&S - are going to be stuck with an inferior save as well as needing to hope they aren't gibbed on the charge before they can strike.
There is a way I could work my O&G army around this issue (Gunline, as I pointed out in the WHFB subforum), but purchasing over $150 of War Machines for Orcs and Goblins so that they can survive due to their shooting is wrong on several levels. It's worse for Beastmen, who can't even use the gunline trick to make up for this problem (what are they going to do, Ungors with bows and two Stone Throwing Giants?).
11824
Post by: He Who Stood
its certainly going to be interesting, thats for sure
depending on what happens, this might be the fix we need, or a massive hosing that calls for a total work around/revamp for the armies.
while % will certainly cut into the herohammer aspects, what about the older tomb kings? and high elves who are designed to play as an elite force?
its going to have to just sit and wait till the book comes out, see what happens adapt and move on
3330
Post by: Kirasu
I think by now youd know who cares about tomb kings.. answer is "not GW".. I mean theyre already horrible now, i cant see them getting much worse! Thats a bright side
Until we see the full book its hard to say which army will be hurt
21678
Post by: Karon
I fear for my Children of Chaos, Dice Gods(who run GW, if you didn't realize) as they seem to settle all decisions on a D6 of 4+.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Dwarves almost always struck last anyway. The overall changes are only going to help them. Making it harder to change armor will be huge since the basic dwarf is normally 3+. Add in that 2 ranks are fighting and Iron Breakers just got absolutely sick! Longbeards too. In fact to me it's looking like the rule changes might actually make dwarves playable
443
Post by: skyth
If the rumors about ASF not helping if you have great weapons, High Elves are really done now.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
On the contrary, the rules for ASF are changing as well.
I don't know what yet, but I doubt they'd nerf half the HE army without a very good reason.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
What's awesome is that a lot of these rumors help make demons even more great. Do you really want to charge into a unit of Deamonettes (the worst of the four core demon units) when they are going to be striking before the majority of the stuff in the game at I5 then hitting on 3+ with WS5 and 2 attacks in two ranks of models? It doesn't matter if they are S3 that's still pretty crazy.
It seems to me unless something comes out that we don't know yet (which I admit is likely) if you don't have either a high initiative or high armor save you have no business in combat.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Ok, regarding the green updates, specifically models with Great Weapons always strike last regardless of ASF, haven't Swordmasters suddenly become a bit rubbish?
7597
Post by: Kirbinator
Given that High Elves are highly rumored to be part of the starter kit, seems like they'd be pretty ahead in line for an 8th ed army book. If that is the case, pretty good chance at Swordmasters being altered.
Do you really want to charge into a unit of Deamonettes (the worst of the four core demon units) when they are going to be striking before the majority of the stuff in the game at I5 then hitting on 3+ with WS5 and 2 attacks in two ranks of models?
From the players around here, any of them who bothered to bring Daemonettes also had a Herald with them to grant ASF. Nothing new there, except the two ranks thing. It would certainly make Witch Elves much scarier, though!
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Flashman wrote:Ok, regarding the green updates, specifically models with Great Weapons always strike last regardless of ASF, haven't Swordmasters suddenly become a bit rubbish?
Apparently ASF is being reworked. And HE will be getting some kind of rule bonus to make it worth their while.
3537
Post by: wildger
I don't believe a lot of these rumors despite how reliable other people claim. A unit or a figure that is considered broken is usually due to their low point cost. Having a percentage cap simply aggravate the problem rather than mixing it. This is supposed to be a massive battle not a skirmish. Having too many terrains is ridiculous. This is same with having random distance made in having a charge. These changes simple carry on the existing problems rather than mixing it. There are many game companies and GW is one of the very few if there are anyone who can go ahead to make all these major changes without consulting with the players. A smart consumer should sell their existing armies and play something else. The cost of upgrade to become tournament legal is enough to get you another nice game system. I have been tell any newbie to have interested in WHFB to stay away from it. It is simply not worth it.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
wildger wrote:I don't believe a lot of these rumors despite how reliable other people claim. A unit or a figure that is considered broken is usually due to their low point cost. Having a percentage cap simply aggravate the problem rather than mixing it. This is supposed to be a massive battle not a skirmish. Having too many terrains is ridiculous. This is same with having random distance made in having a charge. These changes simple carry on the existing problems rather than mixing it. There are many game companies and GW is one of the very few if there are anyone who can go ahead to make all these major changes without consulting with the players. A smart consumer should sell their existing armies and play something else. The cost of upgrade to become tournament legal is enough to get you another nice game system. I have been tell any newbie to have interested in WHFB to stay away from it. It is simply not worth it.
I'm not sure what part of your post I love best. Is it:
- Where you claim the rumors are unreliable?
- Where you warn potential players off from the game and tell people to get out of it because the (unreliable) rumors suggest changes you don't agree with?
Or is it the really terrible English?
These are rumors. Wait until July before doom and gloom time. If GW was promising a 50% price increase, I could understand. There is historical evidence to support a "sky is falling" mentality. But - somehow - after 8 editions, I doubt WHFB is going to implode as a game.
21678
Post by: Karon
Indeed, what Scottywan said.
These are rumors, your being overpresumptuous, you ruin the game by saying "Don't play it, it sucks"
Butterfly Effect.
13185
Post by: tibour
Having Flayed WHFB since the second ed., I for one will get 8th. 
The rule that I hope they fix is that you can step forward and die but not swing back in melee. This is really the only problem I have with the game. After all if you are stepping forward into a gap in the ranks you are going to be swinging 
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Karon wrote:, you ruin the game by saying "Don't play it, it sucks"
Butterfly Effect.
OMG! If I stop playing I might cause a hurricane in Montevideo!!!
Quick where's the dice?! 
26651
Post by: Grimaldus
Kirbinator wrote:Given that High Elves are highly rumored to be part of the starter kit, seems like they'd be pretty ahead in line for an 8th ed army book. If that is the case, pretty good chance at Swordmasters being altered.
Do you really want to charge into a unit of Deamonettes (the worst of the four core demon units) when they are going to be striking before the majority of the stuff in the game at I5 then hitting on 3+ with WS5 and 2 attacks in two ranks of models?
From the players around here, any of them who bothered to bring Daemonettes also had a Herald with them to grant ASF. Nothing new there, except the two ranks thing. It would certainly make Witch Elves much scarier, though!
Yeah, they become a pretty sick unit with the rumored changes though executioners become pretty useless based on the 8th edition rumors on great weapons so far. All the dark elf melee characters will be a lot better in combat now, especially Crone Hellebron
721
Post by: BorderCountess
Now that I think about it, 'step up' would tend to discourage charging. I mean, the point of charging is to get that first swing and kill guys before they get the chance to strike. If you kill the front rank of Chaos Warriors now, they don't get to swing back and own you. If they got to step up and attack anyway, you're screwed no matter what.
24035
Post by: Ostrakon
wildger wrote:I don't believe a lot of these rumors despite how reliable other people claim. A unit or a figure that is considered broken is usually due to their low point cost. Having a percentage cap simply aggravate the problem rather than mixing it. This is supposed to be a massive battle not a skirmish. Having too many terrains is ridiculous. This is same with having random distance made in having a charge. These changes simple carry on the existing problems rather than mixing it. There are many game companies and GW is one of the very few if there are anyone who can go ahead to make all these major changes without consulting with the players. A smart consumer should sell their existing armies and play something else. The cost of upgrade to become tournament legal is enough to get you another nice game system. I have been tell any newbie to have interested in WHFB to stay away from it. It is simply not worth it.
Jeez, you have to be the worst kind of player in any type of game I've seen.
-Overly simplified view of unit balance
-Thinks he knows what the game is "supposed to be" better than the people whose careers are built on making the game
-Treats rumors as fact, general "sky is falling" attitude
-Discouraging others from playing the game based on his own skewed perspective of the game that's barely grounded in proto-reality
Cancer killing gaming, really. In all of its forms.
7597
Post by: Kirbinator
Grimaldus wrote:Yeah, they become a pretty sick unit with the rumored changes though executioners become pretty useless based on the 8th edition rumors on great weapons so far.
Oh, it isn't 8th ed rumored great weapons that make executioners pretty useless. They do that just fine in 7th and I don't really expect that to change.
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
If the current rumour is true that charging will not provide an initiative bonus, what bonus will it provide?
Extra attacks for the chargers (a la 40k) would make some units/matchups far too good.
Given that historically the purpose of a charge was to disrupt the opposition, maybe reduce the number of attacks from the defenders? Or make it harder for the defenders to hit on that first round?
There needs to be some point to charging beyond 'we're going to hit each other now'
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
If you really wanted charging to be realistic, you'd make the Chargers test on Ld (simulated via variable charge distance) and force a Ld test for defender's reaction...
21678
Post by: Karon
Which would gimp all CC-related armies that have low LD (Orcs, Beastmen, etc.)
4661
Post by: Minsc
Orcs actually have an at least semi-decent leadership compared to Beastmen (Goblins, on the other hand...)
However, stepping up and initiative - combined - are big "Sod you" rulings for several armies. Now, if they fight each other, things will be slightly closer. However, the division between game tiers is going to become much more apparent if the rumors are factual. How many armies can you think of that'll be able to deal with Chaos Warriors post-change, due to the reduction in armor save modifiers as well as the fact that if they hit your line in anything more than six models they're going to make your unit quickly vanish before it can act (even if you charge).
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
He Who Stood wrote:its certainly going to be interesting, thats for sure
depending on what happens, this might be the fix we need, or a massive hosing that calls for a total work around/revamp for the armies.
while % will certainly cut into the herohammer aspects, what about the older tomb kings? and high elves who are designed to play as an elite force?
its going to have to just sit and wait till the book comes out, see what happens adapt and move on
The percentages thingy is nothing new we had it before but as rumored (25% heroes) TK can´t be played as a legal army under 900pts (1 mummy + 1 priest 215pts), say goodbye to the Ark of the Covenant or Khalida under 2500pts (has somebody ever played Settra?).
But it´s because GWs is running away from herohammer people say, well as you pointed out if you take away the fear special rules, start fighting by I order regardless who charges first plus the above limits to characters one has to wonder what the hell are going to do the undead players without a crash revamp for Vampies and TK.
As usual the ASF change (again, if true...) will be another GW screw up, don´t misinterpreted me, ASF might be broken and needs to be fixed but a nerf all across the board and then a [Facepalm]"but what about HE? we need a new rule to make them viable we´ll call it FSA" will bring us back to square one when in a year time every armybook starts using the FSA rule [/Facepalm]
We´ll have to wait but strange enough although I started out as mainly a WHFB player I only played a 7th ED game so far and I´m not holding my breath on 8th.
M.
21659
Post by: Mattbranb
Am I the only one who is curious about how they could affect the "something to prevent spamming"? Are we talking something like:
1. No more than 2 of the same special choice
2. No double rare choices
If it ends up being something like this, my Skaven are soooooo screwed. Goodbye multiple PCBs and Doomwheels (which incidently would still be playable at 25% rare in a 2250 game - crossing fingers).
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
I can't see them doing something quite that arbitrary, purely because it would hurt sales.
They already have a maximum number of special/rare choices per points value and will add to this a maximum number of points that can be spent - this on its own will limit/eliminate spam as you won't be able to afford to do it in most cases. An extra restriction is unnecessary.
16070
Post by: Sarge
What exactly are these changes designed to improve? I don't get why adding a random factor to movement and magic will make those phases better. The percentage thing really bugs me, but apparently I'm a tool for fielding dude on dragon in my Wood Elf army. I'd be upset about fear and terro getting nerfed, but the fact that my Ogres are like I2 or so means they won't get to hit anything anyway so the fear never comes into play. As other have stated, I'll reserve my final judgement until the rules are actually released.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Sarge wrote:What exactly are these changes designed to improve? I don't get why adding a random factor to movement and magic will make those phases better. The percentage thing really bugs me, but apparently I'm a tool for fielding dude on dragon in my Wood Elf army. I'd be upset about fear and terro getting nerfed, but the fact that my Ogres are like I2 or so means they won't get to hit anything anyway so the fear never comes into play. As other have stated, I'll reserve my final judgement until the rules are actually released.
Terror i dont have problems with, the rule actually makes sense.
Fear on the other hand is dumb in some regards... Ok 5 ghouls charge my 25 spearmen and i have to take a fear test???
Pretty sure those 25 spearmen arent going to fear 5 ghouls. Unit strength should be a factor on fear tests.
21659
Post by: Mattbranb
I think the fear tests were originally designed to give relatively crappy units in HTH an edge over slightly better units, with an emphasis on "take more"!
VC are a perfect example of this - overrall, low WS, crappy stats, low init, but cheap enough to encourage large units that hope for the enemy to whiff a round of combat and go for the autobreak. With this supposedly changing, as well as combined with the "attack in 2 ranks" rule, your going to see alot more cheap fear causers lose their effectiveness.
Where it started to go wrong though was when army wide fear causing came into effect, as well as multiple terror causers being able to be fielded. Unless you had a LD9 or better general around, your looking at a 42% chance that units would flee from each terror causer being in proximity. Testing at the beginning of your own turn, it just became way too powerful of a game changer.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Sarge wrote:What exactly are these changes designed to improve?
Short-term quarterly profit margins.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
@Mattbranb
Having a fixed limit for stopping spamming would not scale at all.
I don't know what the actual rules will be, but 2 things that could work imo:
..........................Special.............Rare
under 1000............1 of the same.....None of the same
1001-2000.............2 of the same.....1 of the same
2001-3000.............3 of the same.....2 of the same
every +1000..........+1 of the same...+1 of the same
Or alternatively
You cannot take more special choices than core. You cannot take more rare choices than special.
Both of these are quite restrictive though.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Didn't Medieval Total War do something like this?
You could take a certain amount of the same units, but then the cost of each identical unit after a certain amount became increasingly more expensive. It was a way of ensuring varied forces, or smaller forces made up of the same maxed unit.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
I dont know why people keep saying VCs have crappy core troops.. Ghouls anyone? even without fear they're pretty damn good.. T4 with poison and a FREE march move before the game? Okay if you take all zombies and skeletons I agree, but why are you doing that?
16070
Post by: Sarge
ShivanAngel: Are you saying you think terror as it works now is fine?
As to fear, I think the mechanic works fine as well. In your example, the spearmen are likely Ld7 so they're as like to fail as not. If they do fail the, they don't break. They'll just have a hard time hitting the zombies. They'll still likely have a good showing through combat resolution. They'll have something like +5 (ranks, outnumber, standard). You also pay a premium for being able to cause fear in most cases. With the serious downgrade of +1 combat res, fear should basically be free.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Also if the rumor about victory conditions being determined by core units with banners is true, your points are going to be going towards skeletons and zombies with full commands so you might not have any points left for ghouls once you get your specials, rares and characters you'll need to offset the other unit's crappiness. Kinda sounds like we're being stuck into certain army builds which I don't much care for.
8330
Post by: kestral
I wonder if the magic rumors harken back to the "winds of magic" days when you rolled a number of cards to deal out divided among the players (IIRC - I only played one or two games with borrowed armies that far back). You divide the pool in half for each player, add the extra dice your wizards generate, use them for dispelling or casting as you see fit. Some turns there is a huge amount of magic going around, some turns barely a trickle....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
That would please me since I probably could get by without a scroll caddy in that case and have no other use for mages really. You would also have to choose between getting your own spells off and defending against the opponents, which is not so much of an issue in the current rules.
21678
Post by: Karon
You cannot take more rare choices than special.
-----
No.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Karon wrote:You cannot take more rare choices than special.
-----
No.
And:
You cannot take more Special choices than Core.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
It's obvious I know, but my suggestion would mean if you went MSU with core and special you could take lots of rare (within the % limits).
The option would be there.
21678
Post by: Karon
And HE would be fethed.
9892
Post by: Flashman
Grimstonefire wrote:It's obvious I know, but my suggestion would mean if you went MSU with core and special you could take lots of rare (within the % limits).
The option would be there.
Maybe that's what they're trying to get rid of. GW have been trying to steer people towards collecting realistic/balanced armies (i.e. lots of grunts, not too many elite troops, superhuman characters or mega engines of destruction) for years in both Fantasy and 40K. The lastest effort in 40K was to make Troops crucial for 2/3 of the missions. It sounds like they're going to try something similar for Fantasy with this "Objectives can only be held by Core troops with Standards" malarkey.
It won't really affect me because I like games which revolve around low powered armies (the appearance of a Bloodthirster is always met by a weary sigh and roll of the eyes), but I think they should leave the door open to people who want to charge 6 Stegadons across the board. Not everybody enjoys painting rank after rank of grunts to get an army on the table. Come to think of it, I don't enjoy it much either. (20 skaven slaves left to paint... *sigh*).
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Flashman wrote:GW have been trying to steer people towards ... not too many ... superhuman characters... The lastest effort in 40K was to make Troops crucial for 2/3 of the missions.
... and then triple the amount of Special Characters in each Codex, giving them army-altering rules that make some of them virtually mandatory.
Yeah, I think their only 'aim' is to sell models and to keep the sales cycle going. If troops aren't selling, they change the rules so people have to buy more of them. And when the sales go down from that, they'll change again.
9892
Post by: Flashman
H.B.M.C. wrote:Flashman wrote:GW have been trying to steer people towards ... not too many ... superhuman characters... The lastest effort in 40K was to make Troops crucial for 2/3 of the missions.
... and then triple the amount of Special Characters in each Codex, giving them army-altering rules that make some of them virtually mandatory.
Yeah, I think their only 'aim' is to sell models and to keep the sales cycle going. If troops aren't selling, they change the rules so people have to buy more of them. And when the sales go down from that, they'll change again.
Yes, there will always be a business motivation behind selling models, but the non cycnical part of me thinks that JJ and his minions do actually believe that armies should look like armies rather than a random assortment of monsters and war machines.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
H.B.M.C. wrote:Flashman wrote:GW have been trying to steer people towards ... not too many ... superhuman characters... The lastest effort in 40K was to make Troops crucial for 2/3 of the missions.
... and then triple the amount of Special Characters in each Codex, giving them army-altering rules that make some of them virtually mandatory.
Yeah, I think their only 'aim' is to sell models and to keep the sales cycle going. If troops aren't selling, they change the rules so people have to buy more of them. And when the sales go down from that, they'll change again.
Meh i know their bottom line is to sell models, but i disagree that the only aim is to do that...
When i started playing warhammer 5-6 years ago it really did look like 2 armies hit the table for a battle. Now it looks like 2 dragons and 50-60 guys with swords are fighting the wars.
I am personally looking forward to seeing an epic battle going down, as opposed to a small skirmish. Also Games Workshops is actually doing pretty well all things considered with the economy (at least in the USA)
27987
Post by: Surtur
I hear from a very reliable source that the unit requirement for ranks for normal infantry will be 7 and 40mm will be 4. I think cavalry was 5 but I can't remember what was said exactly.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Surtur wrote:I hear from a very reliable source that the unit requirement for ranks for normal infantry will be 7 and 40mm will be 4. I think cavalry was 5 but I can't remember what was said exactly.
6 wide is already clunky. 7 wide 25 mm bases would just be silly. Also 4 wide for ogre bases doesn't help at all. The cheapest unit you can field to get a whopping +1 CR is 280 points and there's no way that range fire can't do three wounds to that unit negating it before combat hits so you'd have to have some extra redundant models. It really doesn't help the Ogre situation in the least.
Kinda hoping those aren't true. As much as I want 8th to be cool none of the rumors sound any good with the possible exception of percentages (which will suck if they don't release balance errata for current books to work with them).
26407
Post by: Bloodwin
I'm not going to try to second guess what GW has planned for 8th ed. What I would like to see is Fantasy versions of Apocalypse and some small scale fights similar to kill teams in 40k. I don't mean that it has to be skirmish though. Perhaps a reduction of units so that you have 6 or 8 infantry in a block rather than 15-20 and no siege weapons. I do think they need to do something with the game regarding scenery. The current unit size is way to big for city fights or fights in woodland. Given that such a big swathe of the Old World is forest I'd like to see a way of having lots of big trees and stands of trees with avenues inbetween and possibly replace a couple of stands withg sacred sites. This would give some nice strategy problems for woodelves and beastmen. For an apocalyse style game I'd like to see huge plains with very little scenery and possibly something in the chaos wastes with movable scenery objective points. I'd also like to see some castle/city fights where you have the big outer walls and then secondary walls before you get to the central keep / living quarters. Each section would have grids of buildings and objectives that have to be either held or destroyed. Destroying objectives would be interesting because troops couldn't do it and it would either tie up a hero or you'd have to include monstrous allies in your army list.
4661
Post by: Minsc
Bloodwin wrote:What I would like to see is Fantasy versions of Apocalypse
Legendary Battles?
Bloodwin wrote:and some small scale fights similar to kill teams in 40k. I don't mean that it has to be skirmish though.
Warhammer Skirmish? Warhammer Mordheim? Warhammer Warbands?
If you mean the old Kill Teams, it can be simulated well enough. If you mean the new, it doesn't quite work as you can't just take a WHFB rulebook and slap a couple abilities on people saying "They are veterans": You'd pretty much only have psychological factors, and and in Skirmish a few of them might not matter much (Immune to Psychology in Skirmish wouldn't help too much for instance outside fighting two or three armies).
Bloodwin wrote:Perhaps a reduction of units so that you have 6 or 8 infantry in a block rather than 15-20 and no siege weapons.
So Warbands?
Bloodwin wrote:I do think they need to do something with the game regarding scenery. The current unit size is way to big for city fights or fights in woodland.
But regiments were wielded in blocks, not small strings of people eight-to-ten big.
Bloodwin wrote:I'd also like to see some castle/city fights where you have the big outer walls and then secondary walls before you get to the central keep / living quarters.
Now this would require an Apoc-style change, as outside Flier units or some very good spell rolling it'd be impossible to make it past the first wall in a single game. WHFb can't pull a 40K and expect its faster infantry to run some 40"+ in three turns regardless of terrain in the way.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
In normal RaF taking a unit of 6-7 would be very very risky. All you have to do is pop 2 with shooting or magic and they are testing for panic.
I also agree 7 wide is already clunky (even though i run my units 7 wide). 4 wide for 40mm bases just doesnt make sense. Are there even units with 40mm bases that you would want to run 4 wide?
4661
Post by: Minsc
ShivanAngel wrote:In normal RaF taking a unit of 6-7 would be very very risky. All you have to do is pop 2 with shooting or magic and they are testing for panic.
I also agree 7 wide is already clunky (even though i run my units 7 wide). 4 wide for 40mm bases just doesnt make sense. Are there even units with 40mm bases that you would want to run 4 wide?
I think Ushabti sometimes work at four-wide, but that's the very largest I can imagine wielding them. Same goes for possibly Iron Guts, depending on characters and what-not.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
Updated the first post.
4661
Post by: Minsc
Please tell me all these 8th Edition WHFB rumors are just an elaborate joke. Please, someone, tell me it's not so.
If Musicians lose their old bonus for +1 to Rally (if there is a rally and units don't become disorganized like WotR), they're going to vanish from a lot of people's army lists. Fast Cavalry for instance are probably going to drop them for some extra points to spend elsewhere (if, without the Musician, the Fast-Cav unit is still reliable enough to be worth taking).
Same goes for if the Standard Bearer loses its bonus to combat res, a lot of people will probably drop theirs if their army is more re-active than pro-active.
If the rumor that charging = +1 Combat Res is true, the whole digs deeper and deeper. Several of the armies being hit by the rule don't need a 6 static combat res from the charge, they need the security that they're not going to watch some 10+ models striking against them before they can do anything with their attacks and low WS / Armor combinations (I say 10+ as the "Strike in two ranks" rule seems very loathe to die).
Longbows is one of the few rule changes I don't mind, and actually encourage: Would people really mind if a unit of 15 Longbowmen on the hill could fire 15 shots instead of 10?
Resolving the whole "Terrain covering the table" issue with "It doesn't slow you down but now you take 16% of unit away as casualties when going through" is, well, idiotic. If it applies to Skirmishers too, then it just makes things worse. And finding Magic Items at random in the woods too?
If this edition is not a joke, then I'm seriously doubting it's meant for anyone to actually use it but actually an attempt to drive people into the arms of Warhammer 40K. These rules make little to no sense, so unless they're all horrendously false leaks to find where GW needs to plug its rumor sources, then - regardless of what I originally said - I probably am going to stop playing WHFB in their stores until the next edition. If I can find a group to play at their houses and all and get some 7th-or-earlier edition games in, I'll crack the army out. Otherwise, it's just not appealing to me. And, once more, of course they're going to drastically increase the amount of terrain after they start drastically cutting down on the number of (effective) skirmisher units.
5256
Post by: NAVARRO
Jesus man just relax! At this point everything is still sketchy and taking so many conclusions based on rumours is just not productive. Unless we have a clear OVERALL picture of the new edition theres really no point in moaning.
Thank you Grimstonefire for the updates they are a very interesting and for sure fun to check out.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
Woah, hold your horses there Minsc!
I probably should make it clear that unless something is written in the sticky as being changed it will all stay the same.
The command things are all in addition to what they currently do.
I've added a couple more things I will stick in here next time I copy it over. Basically allied forces % allocation is not in there, but the rules for using allies are.
So they would need the opponents permission.
735
Post by: JOHIRA
I figure if GW was going to change the width of ranks, they wouldn't have set every infantry unit in the Beastman armybook to 5/10 minimums.
2776
Post by: Reecius
NAVARRO wrote:Jesus man just relax! At this point everything is still sketchy and taking so many conclusions based on rumours is just not productive. Unless we have a clear OVERALL picture of the new edition theres really no point in moaning.
Thank you Grimstonefire for the updates they are a very interesting and for sure fun to check out.
Haha, my thoughts exactly! The sky has not fallen just yet, let's wait and see, and then wait to PLAY the new rules before passing judgment. We may all be pleasantly surprised.
I thought 40K 5th ed sounded like crap, but it turned out to be, by far, the best edition of the game yet, at least IMHO.
So let's see first before getting upset. I personally think WFB sucks ass right now and is in dire need of major changes, but I know not everyone feels that way.
8288
Post by: Rated G
Minsc, every time I see you post, my eyes glaze over your wall of text and instead, I see a very popular meme with Leonidas screaming at the top of his lungs. My dakkafu is weak, or I'd come up with something.
In short, just calm down man. Complain when the book hits the shelves, or at least until we get some reliable pdfs on the intrawebz.
4661
Post by: Minsc
I'm sorry for complaining, but I am just not amused that the hobby I've been focusing on for the last five and a half years is taking drastic changes that - seemingly - are mostly negative (EDIT: In my opinion).
There are good implementations in the new rules, I've stated them in prior pages. However, I am not liking a lot of the proposed changes. It's that simple. I like my rule changes to be minor things, stuff like archers get to fire in two ranks now or Ogre ranks need to be less wide than Goblin (in terms of models). I don't like my rule changes coming in the variety of "Terrain turns into 40K Dangerous that can possibly hold a magic item" or "Irresistible Force can now drop a S5 mortar centered on top of your Wizard" changes.
I repeatably mention "If not a joke", "If the majority of these rumors are true", "If these rumors aren't disproven". A few of the changes, I can accept. But, again, when 60%-70% of the rumors are leaving a bad taste in my mouth and only about 10% of them a good one (the remaining 20%-30% being rumors I am apathetic to), there's reason for me to be wary.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Well there are always players who dont adapt well to any changes in a game system regardless of what they are.. You might be one of them
Terrain in fantasy needed massive changes.. As ive said before it might as well be impassable for non-skirmishers.. Im not sure I like 1 in 6 chance of dying but I prefer that over STUCK FOR THE ENTIRE GAME.. It wouldnt be so bad if you could move small amounts in terrain without totally destroying your movement for the rest of the game (IE wheeling out or moving 2" with no penalty
Fact is, terrain is stupid right now and always has been.. Fantasy desperately needs dynamic boards and dynamic missions.. Barren boards using pitch battle are great for old timers and status quo but I think GW is finally realizing it makes the game too static
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Minsc wrote:I'm sorry for complaining, but I am just not amused that the hobby I've been focusing on for the last five and a half years is taking drastic changes
Five-and-a-half-years isn't a long time. Many of us have been playing for a decade or more. Sad, but true. Over time, you learn to roll with the changes.
In general, based on how I've seen 40k evolve from 2E, to 3E, to 4E (with Apoc), to current 5E, each step has been generally positive overall.
WFB made great strides forward from 5E to 6E, and I'm thinking 7E to 8E has similar intent.
Sure, there's a little heartburn during the transition, but overall, GW's dev team has been doing a good job. I think we owe 8E a serious look before turning it away.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Interesting how those that seem most enamoured of the rumours have space marine avatars
sorry, just couldn't resist
meanwhile back on topic...
3330
Post by: Kirasu
I could change it to something WFB if that would increase my internet street cred.. Obviously the avatar makes things much more creditable!
7597
Post by: Kirbinator
None dare question the cat. Clearly felines are the superior avatar.
21678
Post by: Karon
Kirbinator wrote:None dare question the cat. Clearly felines are the superior avatar.
Sir, my avatar is a laughing lord of change.
He is amused at the rage of the daemons book.
I win.
---------------
Anyways, I hope a lot of these aren't true, but its not up to us.
You know what crying about it does? Nothing.
The book is already being printed, everything that is in the book is set in stone. We'll have to roll with it.
There WILL be the good, and there WILL be the bad. That's inevitable. I just hope I don't have to change my list too drastically for these changes, I am not made of money.
443
Post by: skyth
I am not really all that enamoured with the rumors. It seems that they are taking away the importance of maneuvering and charging and just making the game more random.
This probably appeals to thier target demographic though. However, I perfer my games being won on skill rather than luck.
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
I'm still liking most of these rumours - they same to be levelling the playing field a lot and for those who say they want it to be a contest of skill, surely this is better than - ooh, I've taken Daemons, I'll just push this big red iWIN button...
The one I don't like is 'finding magic items in the woods'. This is supposed to be Warhammer, not D&D. Magic is supposed to be rare and dangerous - but hey, I'll stop in the middle of a battle to do a bit of treasure hunting in the woods "Ooh look! I've just found a sword of smiting, who left that there? Careless of them..."
It just seems a little over the top. The only way I can see it working balance-wise is if either its impossible to find anything good (in which case people won't bother and the rule is a waste of time), or its a scenario-specific rule rather than a general 'this happens all the time' rule.
443
Post by: skyth
The thing is, they aren't really leveling the playing field. They are just changing what the power lists are. The game will still be as unbalanced as it was before.
The only difference is that because there is so much more random elements involved and skill-based elements are reduced, it makes lower power armies able to win slightly more, but through pure happenstance, rather than any skill involved.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
I think the worst builds will mostly all vanish, so that part is good. Obviously people will instinctively have identified the new generation of power builds within a few days.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
I SO cannot wait for full rulebooks to come out and confirmations to appear.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
I do not believe that stuff about losing models going through the woods. It would make skirmishers nearly useless. Also imagine bringing a 400-500+ point character in the woods and rolling a 1...
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
If it is the Forest of Athel Loren then it would be fair enough Shiven
9892
Post by: Flashman
These terrain "events" hark back to the very first days of Warhammer when going through a wood (or near one?) saw your models being attacked by Satyrs. Ironically, the designers poked fun at this in the 25th Anniversary issue of WD. Maybe the idea grew on them...
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Flashman wrote:These terrain "events" hark back to the very first days of Warhammer when going through a wood (or near one?) saw your models being attacked by Satyrs. Ironically, the designers poked fun at this in the 25th Anniversary issue of WD. Maybe the idea grew on them...
I dont think my hydra is to concerned about satyrs....
Actually he would probably enjoy the snack...
4661
Post by: Minsc
ShivanAngel wrote:Flashman wrote:These terrain "events" hark back to the very first days of Warhammer when going through a wood (or near one?) saw your models being attacked by Satyrs. Ironically, the designers poked fun at this in the 25th Anniversary issue of WD. Maybe the idea grew on them...
I dont think my hydra is to concerned about satyrs....
Actually he would probably enjoy the snack...
Obviously the Satyrs are on fire and giving indigestion.
The terrain rules are the ones that - regardless of army I play - I find the most trouble in. Initiative is more of a gripe because I play one of the four-or-so armies that have low Initiative and need the "Chargers go first" bonus, but Terrain makes little sense to me overall. Er, the "Terrain is all dangerous" and "You need 5-10 pieces of it on the board" bit makes little sense, not the "What are these round bases with trees on them?" variety of little sense.
Percentages, funnily enough, are one of the changes I'm meh over. I can see both sides of the argument, and - while I feel for Tomb Kings - it is one of the more effective ways to block stuff like Sorc Lord, 2 Scorc Lvl 2's, and a Exalted BSB in a 2K point game.
EDIT: Well, besides the whole "Your magic can hurt you much more readily now" bit.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Huh?
anything to do with woods and satyrs?
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Looking at these rumors, I am getting the feeling that I might not be joining people in the new edition.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Looking at these rumors, I am getting the feeling that I might not be joining people in the new edition.
Looking at these rumors i doubt half of them are true...
New editions are meant to supplement and fix things that are broken with the old edition. Why would suddenly, after 7 editions, they change the game entirely.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Dunno. Ask 3rd edition 40K.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
It really sounds like they are trying to iron out the imbalances by making the game as random as possible. I have to admit on some level I kinda dig that since it will always be a crazy new experience. However how much fun will losing or winning be if much of what happened was totally outside your control.
Seems to me if these current rumors are true there is no reason for Fantasy tournies. I know I'm not going to pay for a ticket to something where crazy random stuff determines if I win rather than skill. Whether that is good or not I guess is up to if you like that aspect of the hobby. While the tourney scene now is pretty much a mess of super borken lists, at least they do what you want them to.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Scottywan82 wrote:Dunno. Ask 3rd edition 40K.
Or 6th ed Fantasy.
24882
Post by: Infreak
Ixquic wrote:It really sounds like they are trying to iron out the imbalances by making the game as random as possible. I have to admit on some level I kinda dig that since it will always be a crazy new experience. However how much fun will losing or winning be if much of what happened was totally outside your control.
Seems to me if these current rumors are true there is no reason for Fantasy tournies. I know I'm not going to pay for a ticket to something where crazy random stuff determines if I win rather than skill. Whether that is good or not I guess is up to if you like that aspect of the hobby. While the tourney scene now is pretty much a mess of super borken lists, at least they do what you want them to.
If there that much randomness being introduced I can imagine there are likely to be magic and magic items which will help to reduce the amount of randomness in the game. Adding a greater amount of chance into the game could help to balance it, but it would be a bit strange to add so much uncertainty without also adding some measure of control. This would allow skill to be a major factor in the game still.
27987
Post by: Surtur
Ok, I confirmed with my source, cavalry will be 6 wide (not the 5 wide I remembered). Hand weapons fight 2 deep, spears 3 deep. Ogre sized creatures get a rampage attack (specifics unknown). There is something about 50 strong. There will be percentages for composition. Killing blow will be for models your size or smaller, so ogres can KB other ogres. That is all I got.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
@Surtur
Can you ask if the models in the second rank get their full quota of attacks, or if they only get to make one attack each?
18072
Post by: TBD
Cavalry need to be 6 wide to do what?
27987
Post by: Surtur
From what was said, it was indicated as full attacks.
And 6 wide for rank.
EDIT: Forgot, rank bonuses are unlimited.
18072
Post by: TBD
In other words, to be able to get a rank bonus for their cavalry, people would now have to buy three boxes of five models instead of two. And all the five-wide movements trays people have now will become useless.
They can shove it up their bums, just like all the rumored terrain shenanigans. I am not planning to play even a single game with these rules if they are true.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
Hmm.. I'll need to ask around (again) on unlimited rank bonuses, from what I was told they are not changing.
9132
Post by: PanamaG
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Looking at these rumors, I am getting the feeling that I might not be joining people in the new edition.
Really? I am quite looking forward to it. IMO the current style of Fantasy is played out and the codexes unbalanced to the point it is unplayable. A new edition might fix both in one go.
Again I am really excited. I am hoping for something new but I am also hoping that the vets will stick around as well.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
TBD wrote:In other words, to be able to get a rank bonus for their cavalry, people would now have to buy three boxes of five models instead of two.
And all the five-wide movements trays people have now will become useless.
Duh. You didn't think 8E was going to push people to buy more models?
The movement tray is only 100mm. That's 5-wide for 20mm bases, but only 4-wide for Cav/Orks.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Surtur wrote:Ok, I confirmed with my source, cavalry will be 6 wide (not the 5 wide I remembered). Hand weapons fight 2 deep, spears 3 deep. Ogre sized creatures get a rampage attack (specifics unknown). There is something about 50 strong. There will be percentages for composition. Killing blow will be for models your size or smaller, so ogres can KB other ogres. That is all I got.
I really can't wait for my 40+ point models to start getting 1 shot.
Or my Giant to get killing blowed by a Manticore.
Yeah, that sounds like a horrendously terrible design decision.
306
Post by: Boss Salvage
PanamaG wrote:Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Looking at these rumors, I am getting the feeling that I might not be joining people in the new edition.
Really? I am quite looking forward to it. IMO the current style of Fantasy is played out and the codexes unbalanced to the point it is unplayable. A new edition might fix both in one go. Again I am really excited. I am hoping for something new but I am also hoping that the vets will stick around as well.
I myself am fully prepared to continue playing 7th edition should 8th edition prove fully unsatisfactory and/or suspiciously like a rough version of 40k. I find 7th to be a lot of fun, though I also practice a lot of self-control in my army building and am not a huge tournament player. In fact, one of the better results of 8th might just be that we players finally take our issues with 7th and just create our own 7.5th edition. Honestly there is very little stopping us. But aye, we'll see what 8th actually brings. - Salvage
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
How many occasions do monsters with killing blow actually get to fight another monster?
Must be pretty rare I would think, and that's before they roll the killing blow itself.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
It doesn't matter how rare it is. Even if it only happens once in a while it still results in a huge points swing based on one dice roll that you have no control over as the defender. So if there's a flying monster with KB, there is no chance you can avoid it with a non flying monster so every game you'll have to cross your fingers and hope the attacker doesn't roll a 6 on one dice or your 200 point model is gone. In the case of the Manticore it even has hatred so the luck element of hitting on no better than 3+ is gone. That's stupid and takes strategy entirely out. You can say you can bunker up and hope to avoid it but at that point the other guy is running around capturing objectives, picking off stranglers, etc so it's still a disadvantage.
It's like the Tzeench level 6 spell. Sure it's not going to roll 11 or 12 on every cast, but it'll happen often enough that you have a severe threat that often times can't be stopped and it's down to you hoping your opponent rolls bad since there's no defense since your toughness, armor save, ward and wounds are all irrelevant. When it's a 24" range with almost no targeting restrictions you can't even get away. That sort of crazy random stuff is rarely fun and often result in people just "resetting" the game and starting over.
Also do you think that they are going to write a rule like that and not take advantage of it? I am sure that if they make a rule that models of X base size can use an ability they will be given that ability regardless of if they currently don't have it. Otherwise what would be the point?
443
Post by: skyth
JohnHwangDD wrote:
The movement tray is only 100mm. That's 5-wide for 20mm bases, but only 4-wide for Cav/Orks.
Funny, my movement trays are 125mm for my Cav and Orcs...
26531
Post by: VikingScott
Boss_Salvage wrote:PanamaG wrote:Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Looking at these rumors, I am getting the feeling that I might not be joining people in the new edition.
Really? I am quite looking forward to it. IMO the current style of Fantasy is played out and the codexes unbalanced to the point it is unplayable. A new edition might fix both in one go.
Again I am really excited. I am hoping for something new but I am also hoping that the vets will stick around as well.
I myself am fully prepared to continue playing 7th edition should 8th edition prove fully unsatisfactory and/or suspiciously like a rough version of 40k. I find 7th to be a lot of fun, though I also practice a lot of self-control in my army building and am not a huge tournament player. In fact, one of the better results of 8th might just be that we players finally take our issues with 7th and just create our own 7.5th edition. Honestly there is very little stopping us.
But aye, we'll see what 8th actually brings.
- Salvage
This^
If you don't like 8th, don't play it.
From these changes I think i will be joining you Salvage.
But I will give 8th a go rather than: OMG ITS ALL DIFFERENT SELL ALL MAI WHFB NOW
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
@Ixquic
I'm pretty sure the rule is being made so you can't KB creatures bigger than you. Not to give all monsters KB against each other. It's another balancer for OK's that will help bring them back into the fold of playability. Like solidifying they're ranks into a new system.
21678
Post by: Karon
I like the new KB rule, balances the game out somewhat, makes it so a little man can't cut a giants head off (terribly unrealistic)
Can't wait for 8th, I just hope some of the more terrible rumors are just that: rumors.
But really, the only two rumors I worry about is the variable charge distance, which just might ruin the competitive aspect of this game, and striking in init. order ala 40k. Both of those will destroy my beastmen army, I REQUIRE the charge with my units, or I lose. It really is that simple.
6902
Post by: skrulnik
Boss_Salvage wrote:I myself am fully prepared to continue playing 7th edition should 8th edition prove fully unsatisfactory and/or suspiciously like a rough version of 40k. I find 7th to be a lot of fun, though I also practice a lot of self-control in my army building and am not a huge tournament player. In fact, one of the better results of 8th might just be that we players finally take our issues with 7th and just create our own 7.5th edition. Honestly there is very little stopping us.
But aye, we'll see what 8th actually brings.
- Salvage
I am thinking the same. I plan to pick up whatever starter they come out with, and give the game a shot.
But I quit buying army books awhile back now, and do not want to continue that cycle into a new edition.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
This sounds like the edition to get me into fantasy, now just need to convince the others in my group, that or be content driving 4 hours in one direction to get my game on
4661
Post by: Minsc
Pretty much had my store's blackshirt confirm that Initiative Order is going to be the rule of the day in 8th Edition.
As for the people going "If you dislike 8th Edition, don't play it": That works, so long as you can get a game in outside a GW hobby shop. Otherwise, you're stuck with the "Take it or leave it" approach as GW's - barring a few - are pretty adamant about the whole "We only let you play things that are currently on our shelves or that our Staff members specifically concocted for today" thing. Sure, you can play in the back corner and hope no-body catches you with your 7th Edition Rulebook, but even so you're only two catches away before they give you the "Conform or boot" option.
Initiative Order is a big penalty to several armies, more than some players realize. It's hard to properly explain why, but it is a notable threat to many lists. O&G and Beastmen, for instance, have the problem that - without striking first - they're losing much of their steam that's needed to win combat: Beastmen and Orcs - Orcs especially - rely on the bonus' they receive on the charge to properly defeat an enemy. Armies that are low-initiative but rely on one-round breaks are going to be hit the hardest here.
I at least have a way to counter this: O&G can drop the Orcs, load up on NG's with Fanatics, and then get chock full of War Machines to make up for their losses in hand-to-hand. This doesn't apply as well to the Beastmen, who have much less shooting potential than O&G as well as less counter-measures to the enemy getting up in their face when they don't want them to.
In Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition, Orcs and Goblins are a shooty army first and foremost How the editions change...
443
Post by: skyth
Granted, if the step-up rule is in place, who strikes first doesn't matter all that much really (except in challenges)
To me, it's a symptom of a greater change...The general lessening of skill required. It's intended to increase the fun by letting more dice being rolled by more players.
Random charge distance - Doesn't matter all that much if charging doesn't matter.
Initiative order striking doesn't really matter if how many models killed doesn't affect the number of models striking back.
The rules changes also seem to be designed to do everything they can to discourage small units/monsters. Currently small units/monsters work by getting the charge and killing enough on the charge that no one attacks back.
I think the actual effect will be shooting dominating the game more so than it currently does.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Hulksmash wrote:@Ixquic
I'm pretty sure the rule is being made so you can't KB creatures bigger than you. Not to give all monsters KB against each other. It's another balancer for OK's that will help bring them back into the fold of playability. Like solidifying they're ranks into a new system.
Basically my point is that if they are specifically writing in a rule for what happens when monsters have killing blow and how it has a new effect to kill things bigger than US2, I can expect that rule to start creeping out to new creatures because otherwise they would have left the rule as it was previously. I don't see how this helps Ogres at all. If an ogre had killing blow he could have used it against most models in the game in 7th edition. The only benefit they gain is that they can killing blow and be killing blowed by other ogre sized models which is really just breaking even. Additionally they have to worry about monsters with it as well now when before they were one of the few armies immune to killing blow which was a rare bonus they had.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Ixquic wrote:I can expect that rule to start creeping out to new creatures because otherwise they would have left the rule as it was previously.
You can also look in the Bretonnian book and see that they already have it as a Vow.
21678
Post by: Karon
Granted, if the step-up rule is in place, who strikes first doesn't matter all that much really (except in challenges)
Initiative order striking doesn't really matter if how many models killed doesn't affect the number of models striking back.
Unless my unit is dead before it has attacked...and we don't even know the rules for step-up yet, it might not be all the of the attacks of the second rank, it might just be 1.
Any way you look at it, Beastmen are fethed on this rule.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Platuan4th wrote:Ixquic wrote:I can expect that rule to start creeping out to new creatures because otherwise they would have left the rule as it was previously.
You can also look in the Bretonnian book and see that they already have it as a Vow.
There's a big difference between a gimmick hero that has to spend a large amount of points and have no magical weapons to get a special ability and that ability being standard in the core rulebook for non hero models that won't get squashed if they don't roll that killing blow against a large target.
Think about it this way. In 6th edition ASF wasn't a rulebook rule but something that had to be written out in the entry for certain models. In 7th they made it a standard rule. Look at how ridiculously propagated that became where entire armies had it. I'm not saying that there are going to be legions of killing blow dragons but I doubt they have are going to write this up just for the Manticore.
Karon wrote:Granted, if the step-up rule is in place, who strikes first doesn't matter all that much really (except in challenges)
Initiative order striking doesn't really matter if how many models killed doesn't affect the number of models striking back.
Unless my unit is dead before it has attacked...and we don't even know the rules for step-up yet, it might not be all the of the attacks of the second rank, it might just be 1.
Any way you look at it, Beastmen are fethed on this rule.
I'm wondering how they are going to make Boar Boys with their 3+ armor save, relatively high points cost and I2 useful. It gives me the impression that there is something we don't know yet since whats the point of fancy new models if they literally will die to most everything before getting to attack?
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Ixquic wrote:I'm wondering how they are going to make Boar Boys with their 3+ armor save, relatively high points cost and I2 useful. It gives me the impression that there is something we don't know yet since whats the point of fancy new models if they literally will die to most everything before getting to attack?
Furious Charge or the Waaagh! rule.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Scottywan82 wrote:Ixquic wrote:I'm wondering how they are going to make Boar Boys with their 3+ armor save, relatively high points cost and I2 useful. It gives me the impression that there is something we don't know yet since whats the point of fancy new models if they literally will die to most everything before getting to attack?
Furious Charge or the Waaagh! rule.
I'm hoping it's something standard for all units or cavalry since I don't want them just to fix Orcs but all medium cavalry. Tomb Kings cav would be even worse than before and that's really impressive since they are currently the worst unit in the game.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Well, switching to Init order for CC may mean other changes we don't know about yet. Waaaagh! rule for Orcs. Some kind of bonus for Undead like... raising new troops easier to just tarpit or win out with sheer numbers. Some extra bonus for Empire using complimentary units together.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Scottywan82 wrote:Well, switching to Init order for CC may mean other changes we don't know about yet. Waaaagh! rule for Orcs. Some kind of bonus for Undead like... raising new troops easier to just tarpit or win out with sheer numbers. Some extra bonus for Empire using complimentary units together.
I'm hoping it's more along the lines of "Mounted spears/lances confer a +4 initiative bonus on the turn they charge" or something. If it's up to army books to balance it out certain armies will be screwed for the four years it takes for GW to even get close to completing a cycle.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
I'm betting with 528 pages to spare... they'll have something to fix things in the BRB
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Nah
just reams of sawnky piccies of terrain covered with masses of minis
8272
Post by: FlammingGaunt
K, I really doubt there will be magic items lying on the ground for your soldiers to pick up and go "o hey this looks pretty powerful and will probably turn the tide" I mean I could understand picking up a fallen champions weapon but not armor cause ur not going to change in the middle of a fething battle.
on the KB thing it seems fair, I mean my bolt throwers could kill the manticore b4 it could kill my dragon. just as long as it isn't spamed the point of monsters is that there hard to kill.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Overall, I find a few things rather off.
The "Ranom Charge Distance" rule would seem to just remove any tactics fanasy had.
The terrain rules would be nice for a scenario, but not for normal games, again just too random.
4661
Post by: Minsc
skyth wrote:Granted, if the step-up rule is in place, who strikes first doesn't matter all that much really (except in challenges)
For many close-combat reliant armies, it lowers the number of attacks from halved to thirds (Gors w/ two Hand Weapons, Savage Orcs w/ two Hand Weapons). That's bad for a lot of armies, as not every army is a Chaos Warrior / Elf wherein their combat specialists are WS5 or better. Furthermore, it tips combat res caused by wounds / wound denial to be much harder. When you're playing an army that has to chose between either causing wounds or avoiding them (or, worse, is forced into a single role), this becomes much worse.
40K this works as you'll see stuff like 30 Orks v 10 Chaos Marines. In WHFB, with the numbers the same (30 Orcs, 10 Chaos Warriors), the attacks are more akin to 5-12 (depending on if "Fight in two Ranks" remains) Orcs v 5-10 Chaos Warriors (see prior). Chaos Marines may be halved, but Orks are (nearly) third-fraction to sixth'd in attackers. 40K gives those with numerical superiority greater benefits than WHFB.
As for the Boar Boyz example: At least they can be made WS4, are T4, and given a 3+ save. Wolf Riders are pretty much worthless as Fast Cav now, you either take them as Faster-than-normal medium cavalry, or take Spider Riders for your fast cav (as they at least are getting an I4 poisoned attack to counter-act the I2 of the Goblin). A 5+ save, T3, WS2, I2 cavalry unit isn't going to do anything even if it slams someone on the Flank, barring something like a unit of Empire Spearmen.
443
Post by: skyth
I was going with the rumor that the ones that step up get thier full allotment of attacks.
21678
Post by: Karon
Doesn't really matter, anyways, my 12 Gors w/ AHW and musician are as good as useless now :/
11301
Post by: patrickparker1224
Im not sure if this was posted yet, but the managers received a sheet of some definite rules changes when they were in Vegas. My local store manager was nice enough to show it to me.
There are now infinite rank bonus' and some type of modifier or bonus for having over 50 models or unit strength of 50.
Swords fight in 2 ranks, 3 ranks with spears.
Great weapons are still 1 rank.
If a large unit panics, ie. 30 Orcs, they panic all smaller units within 18 inches.
BUT if your general is withing 12 inches you are immune to panic.
They are also going to a Lords of the Ring style charge.
Not sure if these have been posted but just thought i should share.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
50 temple guard rawr
17836
Post by: Ixquic
patrickparker1224 wrote:Im not sure if this was posted yet, but the managers received a sheet of some definite rules changes when they were in Vegas. My local store manager was nice enough to show it to me.
There are now infinite rank bonus' and some type of modifier or bonus for having over 50 models or unit strength of 50.
Swords fight in 2 ranks, 3 ranks with spears.
Great weapons are still 1 rank.
If a large unit panics, ie. 30 Orcs, they panic all smaller units within 18 inches.
BUT if your general is withing 12 inches you are immune to panic.
They are also going to a Lords of the Ring style charge.
Not sure if these have been posted but just thought i should share.
Wow 18"?? I hate to see what happens when the Orc and Goblins or Beatmen's main unit with general panics. Pretty much game over at that point unless the general still confers that ability even when he's running (which is doubtful). Also Great weapons are pretty much done if they aren't on an elf. I assume they are losing the strike last rule and just going to initiative but stuff like Empire Greatsword or Graveguard will never get to attack due to low armor from a two handed weapon and facing two to three ranks worth of attacks.
Still hoping we'll see full rules in a few week which ties this all together...
3330
Post by: Kirasu
If all units within 12" of the general are immune to panic then why would you worry about the general panicking?
5256
Post by: NAVARRO
To me all this sounds just perfect to start a gobbo army... starded last week
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
patrickparker1224 wrote:Im not sure if this was posted yet, but the managers received a sheet of some definite rules changes when they were in Vegas. My local store manager was nice enough to show it to me.
There are now infinite rank bonus' and some type of modifier or bonus for having over 50 models or unit strength of 50.
Swords fight in 2 ranks, 3 ranks with spears.
Great weapons are still 1 rank.
If a large unit panics, ie. 30 Orcs, they panic all smaller units within 18 inches.
BUT if your general is withing 12 inches you are immune to panic.
They are also going to a Lords of the Ring style charge.
Not sure if these have been posted but just thought i should share.
Awesome! Can't wait to hear more.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Kirasu wrote:If all units within 12" of the general are immune to panic then why would you worry about the general panicking?
Whoops I meant break not panic with the general's unit. Will the 18" panic checks happen when a unit is broken and run down in combat like now? He's not going to panic from fire or other units breaking but he can probably still be forced to take break checks.
I guess realistically at that point if your general and 30 man orc unit are dead it's already over but it's something to think about.
21678
Post by: Karon
patrickparker1224 wrote:Im not sure if this was posted yet, but the managers received a sheet of some definite rules changes when they were in Vegas. My local store manager was nice enough to show it to me.
There are now infinite rank bonus' and some type of modifier or bonus for having over 50 models or unit strength of 50.
Swords fight in 2 ranks, 3 ranks with spears.
Great weapons are still 1 rank.
If a large unit panics, ie. 30 Orcs, they panic all smaller units within 18 inches.
BUT if your general is withing 12 inches you are immune to panic.
They are also going to a Lords of the Ring style charge.
Not sure if these have been posted but just thought i should share.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
My beloved beastmen....dead...my bestigors...even more useless.
QQ
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Really? All we learned was random charge distance and more guys = better.
443
Post by: skyth
If you think random charge distance is better, there is no helping you...
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
skyth wrote:If you think random charge distance is better, there is no helping you...
Alert! Contextual reading failure.
More guys = better as in "the more guys you have in your unit, the better it is".
4661
Post by: Minsc
There are now infinite rank bonus' and some type of modifier or bonus for having over 50 models or unit strength of 50. This rule I can't see much a problem with, because being large enough to get +6 for Ranks (at least 35 big) has its own drawbacks. The only thing I can think bad about this is it makes Screaming Bell / Plague Furnace Skaven Armies very easy to get stuff like +7 or +8 to Combat Res through ranks alone.
Swords fight in 2 ranks, 3 ranks with spears. This rule is not good for low initiative armies. For those who keep thinking "Oh you're just overplaying it": No, I'm not. It might be true if it was Rank & File v Rank & File, but you never see that any more (unless the "Rank & File" are things like Longbeards or Chaos Warriors, which defeat the point anyways). A lot of this ties back to initiative order, which is pretty bad for many armies. BTW, five dollars says - come 9th Edition WHFB - that GW will introduce an "Excite new rule" to WHFB wherein chargers go first again.
Great weapons are still 1 rank. If true, this is pretty much a "Goodbye" to their use. You already sacrifice any striking before the enemy (Strike Last) and your armor save (-2 from if you took HW&S, -1 if you took Spear & Shield), now you're also missing out on some 50-66% of your possible attacks? Greatswords are pretty much the only Great Weapon users who'll still be viable after this development.
If a large unit panics, ie. 30 Orcs, they panic all smaller units within 18 inches. Well, this is going to be fun for low leadership armies. Are you ready to watch entire beastmen formations (as I have an odd hunch they're going to be called "Formations" and not "Regiments" in the next edition) rush off the table due to their 50-50 chance of failure leadership?
BUT if your general is withing 12 inches you are immune to panic. So Orcs lost one of their few advantages of being able to ignore some of the panics inflicted, with not only other armies having it but a superior version to boot? Super. Glad to see Leadership's about to become as much a joke in WHFB as it is in WH40K.
They are also going to a Lords of the Ring style charge. I don't think I've seen anyone who's in favor of this, barring a few Dakkaites who insist that the game requires "More randomness for more fun". Which is funny, as it's about as fun watching your regiment be charged by some Chaos Knights 25" away (the 3D6+M rumor for cavalry) as it is watching your general and his unit be unable to charge an exposed flank 5.5" away that you spent the entire game setting up, because you rolled a 1 for your charge distance.
Good thing I got Orcs in LotR and 40K to tie me up if WHFB does turn out a stinking turd. GW forgot that the choice "New edition = buy new army to have fun" is not alone, shared with "I have two other game systems" and "Guess I'll try finding a mate's place / non- GW hobby shop to game at."
PS: "Have fun" =/= "Win every game", but "Has a chance to win at least one in ten games against random armies without requiring the blessing of the dice gods". When your army's only use in a new edition is cramming in meat-shields for your allies' armies, the fun tends to sap away.
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
And to think all I wanted was a tweaking of rules and some way to make infantry able to stand up to a cav charge.
Instead we get more rules changes than the conversion of 40k 2nd ed to 3rd ed.
The rumours just seem to cripple whole swathes of units from almost every army book (WEs would be a noteable exception thus far) and some armies (O&G I'm looking at you) will go from downright frustrating to unplayable.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
I have updated the first post. (edit; though Avian has already said all of the red stuff is probably wrong)
It looks better on warseer as the colours were green and orange to help the colour blind people. Here lime green turns into an unreadable blue, and orange into red.
So sorry to all the colour blind people here. The main thing is that the new rumours are not white. (hopefully).
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
Random charge is better than the current system that has reliability and therefore the use of tactics and skill to work out what can and can't be done?
This is how I feel about random charge distances....
PLEASE.
I roll enough d6 in this game already.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
What I really want to know is how the 7th edition books are going to fit into all this. Regardless of how you like or dislike the changes, they are pretty dramatic. I don't see how the points value, magic items and special rules from older books are going to work at all. A Ravening Hordes style reboot would make sense but we are being told consistently that it's not happening.
It's very mysterious.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Random charge is better than the current system that has reliability and therefore the use of tactics and skill to work out what can and can't be done?
This is how I feel about random charge distances....
PLEASE.
I roll enough d6 in this game already.
Yeah random charges is the worst idea ever.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
skyth wrote:If you think random charge distance is better, there is no helping you...
Okay, thank you for your unsolicited opinion about me as a person.
443
Post by: skyth
You're welcome.
24035
Post by: Ostrakon
Well, I don't play WFB yet, but random charge distance sounds pretty boss to me.
If anything, making it reliable makes the game more tactical: it's another chance you're going to have to take into account to make decisions. If you're just moving the same amount every time, it seems like that would get pretty stale quickly.
443
Post by: skyth
It doesn't get stale actually. Especially when you are playing against good players.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
skyth wrote:You're welcome.
Modquisition on. Lets keep the language acceptable thank you. We all know what you really meant to say was Frazzled mod is Bestest Mod!
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Please may we not have personal nasties bandied chaps
it has been a good natured thread up to now.
306
Post by: Boss Salvage
Minsc wrote:
They are also going to a Lords of the Ring style charge. I don't think I've seen anyone who's in favor of this, barring a few Dakkaites who insist that the game requires "More randomness for more fun". Which is funny, as it's about as fun watching your regiment be charged by some Chaos Knights 25" away (the 3D6+M rumor for cavalry) as it is watching your general and his unit be unable to charge an exposed flank 5.5" away that you spent the entire game setting up, because you rolled a 1 for your charge distance.
On the subject of 'Randomness For the Random God' ... I actually like a level of unpredictability in my games, more than the 'average' GW gamer. I love the Eye of the Gods (though not how seldom I'm allowed to roll on it), that giants do what they want, and gateway has so far been a total trip in the fickleness of dice (I have yet to auto-remove anybody, though have gotten a lot of 2x S8-10 and 11x S3-4). To put this in 40k terms, I purposefully run possessed because of the random ability keeping things fresh. I am even able to stand that chaos dreads are uncontrollable 1/3 of the game (though that pushes it for me). So I like random. I do not like random charges (and I hate how dicing through difficult terrain charges works in 40k). As I think I've intimated elsewhere, it's the apparent ganking of the movement phase and invalidation of the very process and purpose of charging that will keep me from 8th should it happen, and nothing else.* - Salvage *Note that I actually run warriors of chaos, who benefit from nearly every change stated thus far. High initiative means they go first all the time, no armor ablation means their 2+ save is now ridiculous, + D6" charge for M3-6 models means that their charge range is now 5-10" (barring standards or musicians adding to this!) vs the 8" that it is now, and however they do fighting in more ranks, warriors are simply going to get more WS5 S4 attaks in. And I still do not want.
443
Post by: skyth
It seems the people who are for random charges are part of the group that want to be able to win regardless of how badly they were outplayed.
Unfortunately, this is part of the core GW demographic.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
I was gonna write out a long post explaining the benefits of randomness and that the true test of a talent player is being able to cope with it but Skyth and some of the others in this thread aren't going to change their perception on the changes.
Basically I personally find almost all the changes awesome and look forward 8th edition as the book that brings me back after VC's, DC's, and DE's broke the game for me.
443
Post by: skyth
Do it anyways Hulk. Don't you know that internet arguments are not to convince the people arguing, but rather to convince the people watching silently?
9594
Post by: RiTides
Randomness FTW!
That's why people like O&G, and the like... as long as it's not too overpowering, a little randomness makes the game fun imho
443
Post by: skyth
Randomness also makes the game frustrating.
Random charges would be overpowering. (Especially if they have the '1' always fails rule.)
17836
Post by: Ixquic
skyth wrote:Randomness also makes the game frustrating.
Random charges would be overpowering. (Especially if they have the '1' always fails rule.)
Exactly. I can't see anyone bothering with Orcs if they have to test first for animosity to see if they squabble and then again to see if they can charge. No one plays them now as it is. Randomness is reflected pretty well in dice rolls to wound, hit armor, leadership, etc. Adding in something to see if I can even charge now is stretching it a bit too far. Movement was the one thing in the game I had absolute control over and now that's up to a D6 roll which just sounds incredibly frustrating.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Hulksmash wrote:I was gonna write out a long post explaining the benefits of randomness and that the true test of a talent player is being able to cope with it but Skyth and some of the others in this thread aren't going to change their perception on the changes.
When the power level varies as much as it does, increased randomness is pretty much a mandatory fix, simply to keep the power armies from being guaranteed able to run roughshod over weaker armies.
That and the whole mistaken notion that command, control, communications, coordination, information, and mobility would be completely predictable in pseudo-historicals era...
5256
Post by: NAVARRO
RiTides wrote:Randomness FTW!
That's why people like O&G, and the like... as long as it's not too overpowering, a little randomness makes the game fun imho
Exactly!
And sorry for repeating myself but people are reading to much into rumours and making assumptions with only a partial view of things... Even if rumours are correct you are only looking at one paragraph of a full ruleset. Automatically Appended Next Post: Hulksmash wrote:I was gonna write out a long post explaining the benefits of randomness and that the true test of a talent player is being able to cope with it but Skyth and some of the others in this thread aren't going to change their perception on the changes.
Basically I personally find almost all the changes awesome and look forward 8th edition as the book that brings me back after VC's, DC's, and DE's broke the game for me.
Please do, dont let the moaning squad put you down...
4661
Post by: Minsc
Hulksmash wrote:I was gonna write out a long post explaining the benefits of randomness
There are some benefits, yes. I pointed out the 25" cavalry charge to smash into the enemy early on, and there's also the fact that you can align yourself outside the reliable charge range of an enemy.
However, you can't just go "Oh look there's bonus' to this rule so it's great". When you include the penalties and what they mean to some armies (Orcs need to pass two rolls before they can do anything, which is practically a 33% chance of failure each turn), the rule does less good than damage.
There's a difference between planning for unlikely situations (what happens if my Stubborn Giant breaks this turn), and planning for things that are really unlikely (Cold Ones smashing you in the face turn 1 with a 20+" charge pre-banners, Savage Orc Boar Boyz screaming 37" forward to hit your army's core in the first player-turn of the game) events. I'm an Orc player, and I've seen that you can work randomness into your favor (Just last saturday I used the 6 on an Animosity to get from 3" into wood to 1" into wood, thus making a charge on a Bolt Thrower) as well as need to plan around it (not basing your entire battle plan on a unit with a 16% chance of sitting with its thumb up its rear). Saying "Oh no, it's more helpful than harmful and is a sign of a true player's skill" is a load of crock. Wiping out a unit of six spider riders at long range in hard cover with twelve handgunner shots is not a sign of tactical genius - it's a sign of dice gods favor for the other player.
Randomness can be fun in moderation and can play a small part in a general's planning. Making a 33% chance of doing nothing a turn or dropping a S5 mortar on your Wizard's head because he made the mistake of casting Second Sign of Amul with two dice (getting an Irresistible Force) is not.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Minsc wrote:Randomness can be fun in moderation and can play a small part in a general's planning. Making a 33% chance of doing nothing a turn or dropping a S5 mortar on your Wizard's head because he made the mistake of casting Second Sign of Amul with two dice (getting an Irresistible Force) is not.
Wow, it's like you don't understand math at all. IF on 2 dice is 1/36 = <3% chance. Assuming the S5 5" template is 12/ 2d6, that's another 1/36 chance. So you're talking about something that's got odds over a thousand to one against (1,296:1 odds). Those are pretty safe odds when your risk is less than a tenth of 1% - it's closer to 0% than 1%.
As for the 1/3 chance of doing nothing, what's that from - O&G re-roll passed Animosity now?
17836
Post by: Ixquic
JohnHwangDD wrote:Minsc wrote:Randomness can be fun in moderation and can play a small part in a general's planning. Making a 33% chance of doing nothing a turn or dropping a S5 mortar on your Wizard's head because he made the mistake of casting Second Sign of Amul with two dice (getting an Irresistible Force) is not.
Wow, it's like you don't understand math at all. IF on 2 dice is 1/36 = <3% chance. Assuming the S5 5" template is 12/ 2d6, that's another 1/36 chance. So you're talking about something that's got odds over a thousand to one against (1,296:1 odds). Those are pretty safe odds when your risk is less than a tenth of 1% - it's closer to 0% than 1%.
As for the 1/3 chance of doing nothing, what's that from - O&G re-roll passed Animosity now?
Not trying to speak for Minsc but I'm pretty sure he's talking about two totally separate events. One is the 33% chance that an Orc unit will not be able to charge under the proposed new system (if like WotR a 1 on the charge roll is a stall). The other is a theoretical "wacky fun" miscast he made up for example (since the new IF table is supposed to be crazy) that is potentially devastating but hey it's wacky and fun right? (many of us think it's really not)
The 33% for Orcs is because there is a 1/6 chance for animosity and a 1/6 of a stall for a charge (again if this is like WotR which is seems to be). It's more like a 31% chance but whatever.
21678
Post by: Karon
Scottywan82 wrote:Really? All we learned was random charge distance and more guys = better.
Did you not read the whole thing?
My bestigors have great weapons, and now they can only fight in one rank. They're already not that good, and now they are even more crippled!
Swords/Spears are fine, helps my gors a bit.
The panic part is STILL scary, its 18", and the LD bubble for general is only 12", it still screws with my beastmen even more, as well O&G (we have basically the same LD in all departments)
Random charge distance screws me even more than I thought was possible, I just need 2" to reach them to charge, OH WAIT, I ROLL A fething
I lose.
Mother of god.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
We should all write angry letters yelling about rumors we heard and how they have no right to change or modify our beloved Warhammer Pitched Battles game
8471
Post by: olympia
Random charge distance would be a horrible mistake in general. However, I think my dwarfs, who have not charged anything in 17 months, would be happy enough with the change.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Kirasu wrote:We should all write angry letters yelling about rumors we heard and how they have no right to change or modify our beloved Warhammer Pitched Battles game
I see what you did there...
27987
Post by: Surtur
From what I heard about the random charge is that it's only like +-1inch. Also that units no longer have the big fail charge thing.
Paniced units only panic those of smaller unit strength in 12 inches. The general's immune panic "aura" is 18 inches.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Love how 4 lines of rumored rules changes = 528 pages of rules.
Fairly certain there are shed loads of rules that will alleviate some of the disadvantages to these rules.
4661
Post by: Minsc
Fateweaver wrote:Love how 4 lines of rumored rules changes = 528 pages of rules.
Fairly certain there are shed loads of rules that will alleviate some of the disadvantages to these rules.
And I'm sure the new Ork codex is chock full of more options than the old Ork Codex, I mean it's like four times the old one's size.
Though, to be fair, they could just put in the scenarios and special rules for most of the WHFB supplements and they could probably make up the page gap without too much complaining from the fanbase.
Also, nice switch Kirasu. Not wanting random charges or great weapons to be worthless = we want it to stay pitched battle scenarios.
18282
Post by: Grimstonefire
I've updated it again, from earlier. I can't be bothered to change all the blue over, but the red stuff is what's new anyway.
I'll finish editing tommorow.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Has anyone else seen this one page update? Just curious for some more confirmation.
4661
Post by: Minsc
Unit Strength is gone?
I see this as arguably a game breaker for some lists, depending on how Flanking now works. Armies with small cavalry units designed for flanking are probably going to be redesigned, and those reliant on stuff like a Monster-mounted character hopping around are going to be in trouble (actually, they're going to be pretty much dead unless you don't have a US requirement to flank). Not too many units can beat a static 5 with a starting 0, requiring an average of at least 9 attacks total when everything's S6 or better. DE are probably going to be the worst hit here.
Heavy Infantry being unable to march is going to slow a few armies down, but not many (how many have infantry w/ full plate and shields? Dwarves and Chaos?). Could be debilitating to them, however (since they're losing the mobility edges they might have held). Chaos Warrior armies are going to slow to a crawl as it is now (which means if Chaos Warrior v War Machine Gunline, poor Chaos Warriors, if CW v Combat Army, poor combat army having to wait to die).
Stubborn for a wider front doesn't sit too well for me. I can see red rover formations being set up for the purpose of holding the enemy for a few extra turns. Funnily enough, the armies that would be most benefited by it (Skaven, Goblins, and so on) are - by current FAQ rulings - the least benefited as they can only use unmodified leadership (meaning Ld 5 stubborn Skaven). I can see the rule for wide = stubborn being abused, but only for a few armies (Elves & Dwarves, for instance).
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Dear god people will have to bring regiments of infantry!
The more stuff comes out the more I like. They've debunked some of the weirder stuff (magic weapons in the woods) and confirmed some others. In fact I'm seeing a whole new game where people need to field regiments of troops and calvary and use them wisely instead of 3-4 units and monstrous creatures/character mounted monsters. Ahhhhhhhh. So happy
Orcs are cheap enough that they can still be stubborn too. And it looks like Dwarves are gonna be immune to the no-marching thing in heavy armor. And dwarves cost to much to abuse the stubborn thing to much. 9pts starting is a big point sink since you'll need 25-30 to make sure you stay stubborn.
8288
Post by: Rated G
The rules are changing? This could possibly be game breaking for some armies.
In other news, are some of the rumors in black font for anyone else? I think they are supposed to be red?
4661
Post by: Minsc
Hulksmash wrote:Dear god people will have to bring regiments of infantry!
Oh hey, none of my infantry regiments is fielded below 24 and I've entertained several lists with nothing under 30-big, with some games including 40-big regiments. Yep, I'm definitely afraid of the scary large units. Can't comprehend units larger than 20.
Hulksmash wrote:The more stuff comes out the more I like. They've debunked some of the weirder stuff (magic weapons in the woods) and confirmed some others.
Did I miss something in the updates? Last I looked, magic item in woods is still plausible. Not exactly desired or supported, but plausible.
Hulksmash wrote:In fact I'm seeing a whole new game where people need to field regiments of troops and calvary and use them wisely instead of 3-4 units and monstrous creatures/character mounted monsters. Ahhhhhhhh. So happy
Whilst it's good to see a discouragement to everyone (who could) fielding such lists, I pity you if that's all you see at your GW. Barring EotG Circus', most people in my GW don't field monsters in anything approaching "cheesy" numbers.
Hulksmash wrote:Orcs are cheap enough that they can still be stubborn too.
You don't win by getting slaughtered longer. Orcs, whilst stubborn might make it harder for them to break (assuming a general slapped in the unit becomes stubborn too), aren't going to be breaking anything barring perhaps an Orc unit containing a BSB & Lord (since you can then arguably get two I4 - or if Night Goblins I5 - models). The orcs can hold now, but they aren't going to do much.
Hulksmash wrote:And it looks like Dwarves are gonna be immune to the no-marching thing in heavy armor. And dwarves cost to much to abuse the stubborn thing to much. 9pts starting is a big point sink since you'll need 25-30 to make sure you stay stubborn.
Actually, you only need a rank or two eight wide in order to get Stubborn - going for Stubborn Dwarves you are looking to tie them up through a wide front instead of a bunch of static combat.
The abuse of the rule comes not from taking blocks 35 big, but by taking units 10 or 15 big stretched out in lines with no intent of static combat resolution.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Sweet.. Time to take huge blocks of saurus and watch them never run if theyre stubborn
4661
Post by: Minsc
Kirasu wrote:Sweet.. Time to take huge blocks of saurus and watch them never run if theyre stubborn
Especially if within the BSB's range.
Though the "immune to panic" rumor has me dreading something: Might it also mean that conferring leadership to models within 12" is going to go the way of the dodo? Think about it, if immune to panic within 12" of the general GW might decide "That's good enough" and remove the general's leadership-passing ability. If so, this could be bad for either stupid troops (Chaos / Regular Trolls would probably never be used again) or for low-leadership units who rely on the general for staying-power in combat (Night Goblins, Skaven Slaves, and so on).
Gorbad just became very appealing for Orcs, however. Stubborn Leadership 10 with BSB re-roll He ain't going to do any killing, but Orcs are now a poor (and cheap) man's Hammerers now in regards to being displaced.
721
Post by: BorderCountess
Piping in on the "random = more fun" debate:
HELL no.
I play Warhammer to get engaged in a tactical game, where strategy and planning are important, where I can outsmart and outplay my opponent. Adding in too many random elements will only demean and devalue the game in my eyes. I already get enough random in my games (just yesterday lost two Chaos Knights to a stand and shoot reaction from DE crossbowmen, and they were Tzeentch Knights with Blasted Standard - cost me the win).
If I want to play a game where the primary strategy is dumb luck, I'll go play the card game War.
4661
Post by: Minsc
Manfred von Drakken wrote:If I want to play a game where the primary strategy is dumb luck, I'll go play the card game War.
But does it have hammers?
443
Post by: skyth
Manfred von Drakken wrote:(just yesterday lost two Chaos Knights to a stand and shoot reaction from DE crossbowmen, and they were Tzeentch Knights with Blasted Standard - cost me the win).
Just FYI, Blasted Standard doesn't work vs stand and shoot.
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
I'm curious to know why people always assume that rolling more dice means there is less skill involved?
In fact, the more dice that are rolled means that the results are likely to be closer to mean values, hence making combat more predictable. For those who want a greater emphasis on tactics, this is a good thing as a judgment call on whether a combat is winable will be less affected by lucky rolling.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Yes but that point is conveniently forgotten Calvin somehow.. Fantasy often comes down to a single LD roll or a dispel roll and while that is climatic.. it is not skillful. I do like to play WFB quite a bit (about 3-4 games a week).. but it is what it is
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
I'm seriously fascinated and once I get a better look at Magic... I may see a VC army appearing.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Chimera_Calvin wrote:I'm curious to know why people always assume that rolling more dice means there is less skill involved?
In fact, the more dice that are rolled means that the results are likely to be closer to mean values, hence making combat more predictable. For those who want a greater emphasis on tactics, this is a good thing as a judgment call on whether a combat is winable will be less affected by lucky rolling.
This would be true if the new rules were "take 5 leadership tests and then take the mean." Just adding in more random effects to stuff that wasn't random before isn't going to average out a totally un-related test. People are concerned that stuff like random charges are going to decrease the tactical aspect of the game because they are single dice rolls and thus incredibly susceptible to randomness. Since these tests are all unrelated with each other averages doesn't really help. Rolling two 1s on important charges isn't balanced because you rolled box cars on a leadership test since both effects are bad. You have a point regarding more models getting to swing in combat since all of those dice rolls are connected however the problem is that since they are going to a straight initiative system that will really make faster models more effective at statistically coming even and stopping certain units from being able to fight.
Scottywan82 wrote:I'm seriously fascinated and once I get a better look at Magic... I may see a VC army appearing.
I'm curious why since most of these rumors hit VC hard.
1. Fear and terror are now trivial
2. Harsher character cap on an army that revolves around its characters
3. Requirement of troops with banners when those troops are its worst core options
4. Combat being straight initiative based for an army with almost nothing over I3
5. Cool new ways to insta-kill characters
6. Single dice raising is incredible risky due to two failed casts being a miscast and a nastier miscast table
7. Less characters and more units in a 3k game means a lot of stuff either has to clutter around characters (and thus can't capture objectives) or not be able to march
Feels to me that the army is almost too unfun to play unless they do some serious revisions to all the armies books in the 8th BRB.
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
Sorry, I meant in combat, should have made that clearer in the post.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Chimera_Calvin wrote:Sorry, I meant in combat, should have made that clearer in the post.
That's cool and I agree more dice equals a less random result . Just when people are complaining about "randomness" in regards to the rumors it's more stuff like failed charge or new ridiculous miscast where you get hit with large blasts. 
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Ixquic wrote:Scottywan82 wrote:I'm seriously fascinated and once I get a better look at Magic... I may see a VC army appearing.
I'm curious why since most of these rumors hit VC hard.
1. Fear and terror are now trivial
Really? I wasn't aware you had an advanced copy of the book. Chill until you see, 'kay?
Ixquic wrote:2. Harsher character cap on an army that revolves around its characters
psst... NO ONE's army revolves around characters anymore. This would be a serious disadvantage, except that everyone has it, which is a good thing. Now my units of Skellies and Wights will slug it out with your infantry. Only I can raise mine from the dead.
Ixquic wrote:3. Requirement of troops with banners when those troops are its worst core options
I actually really like the idea of a skeleton horde... *shrug*
Ixquic wrote:4. Combat being straight initiative based for an army with almost nothing over I3
Once again, please feel free to pdf your advance copy and post it on 4chan.
Ixquic wrote:5. Cool new ways to insta-kill characters
Which there are fewer of and so this isn't going to be as big a deal.
Ixquic wrote:6. Single dice raising is incredible risky due to two failed casts being a miscast and a nastier miscast table
Once again, this is a problem for everyone, not just VC.
Ixquic wrote:7. Less characters and more units in a 3k game means a lot of stuff either has to clutter around characters (and thus can't capture objectives) or not be able to march
Or play a lower points cost game and keep the same amount of units. Just a thought.
Ixquic wrote:Feels to me that the army is almost too unfun to play unless they do some serious revisions to all the armies books in the 8th BRB.
They are. Most of the things you mentioned are changes to all the army books. I'm almost confused about how you're annoyed by the rule changes, but then I cast my mind back to 3rd edition 40K and remember my own bitterness. I think this may be a "forest for the trees" instance.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
I dont really like random charge moves either.. imo randomness should be left to "choices" you make as opposed to performing basic functions of the game
such as rolling for difficult terrain in 40k.. It can be quicker than going around.. or might not be, your choice
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
I think the biggest problem with the rumours is that, as yet, we don't know what bonus (if any) will be provided by charging.
Random movement is a downside but what the upside is we don't know. If it becomes less critical to get the charge than now (for some armies/units its a huge deal) then the risks of failure are correspondingly less.
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Chimera_Calvin wrote:I think the biggest problem with the rumours is that, as yet, we don't know what bonus (if any) will be provided by charging.
Random movement is a downside but what the upside is we don't know. If it becomes less critical to get the charge than now (for some armies/units its a huge deal) then the risks of failure are correspondingly less.
I just wanted to quote the voice of reason quickly before it was drowned out.
6987
Post by: Chimera_Calvin
Wow, I'm going to frame that so that I can show my wife that someone thinks I'm the 'voice of reason'
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
Chimera_Calvin wrote:Wow, I'm going to frame that so that I can show my wife that someone thinks I'm the 'voice of reason'
On the internet. That just means you're not this guy:
But hey! Go you.
17836
Post by: Ixquic
Scottywan82 wrote:stuff.
You're the one that read these rumors and now thinks that a VC army is a good idea. I'd like to know why and asked in a polite manner since it seems to me as a VC player that they are going to have problems. You didn't really answer.
From everything we have heard they are NOT revising army books so I don't need a secret PDF to know what's in the book I currently own and have been playing for years (there's a lot of initiative 1-3 models). In regards to fear and terror we are discussing in context of the current rumors and yes fear sounds like it is getting a huge nerf. No more auto breaking and no leadership tests from fear (which is inconsistent with the other rumor that fear test failure results in loss of combat effectiveness). So it's not clear how much it has been reduced but the result is still going to be a lessening of that ability.
VC is an army that is built on crappy troops and revolves around characters. It needs these characters to function as it can't even march without them. In addition if the general dies the army crumbles so going for cheap heroes isn't an option and an expensive Lord is more or less required. Saying that a percentage based system hits all armies equally is totally incorrect.
VC also revolves around magic more than any army. Their magic phase is entirely build around buffing and moving their units. Saying that the new rules around failure to miscast affect everyone equally when a huge strategy of VC is to repeat cast 50% success rate spells is again incorrect.
In regards to your last two points I have no idea what your argument even is. "Cool new ways to kill characters" aren't just going to be character abilities. When I have LESS heroes in the future and they are easier to kill and my army is dependent on them it's pretty obvious this is a net negative. Also playing smaller games means the percentage for characters is going to be shrunk proportionally so there will be the same problems where your troops will not be able to march without expensive banners or certain rare units to babysit them.
My point isn't that Vampire Counts will be unplayable but just un-fun since a lot of what made the army what it is is being specifically targeted for re-balancing. If you wanted to play the shambling skeletal horde you could do that better now which is why I'm confused by someone that looks at this thread and thinks that NOW is the time to start the army. Claiming that I have no advance foresight to the book is true, but we are in a rumor thread discussing rumors. So in context of the rumors posted on page 1 there will be severe issues with the army and discounting that with the argument that we don't know 100% what is going to happen is pretty pointless.
I'm not going to rage-quit my army to preempt that argument I see coming and if 8th is good I will adapt.
I think it's totally fair for people to be concerned with how new rules will affect their expensive armies that they have spent a lot of time painting and converting. We don't know what benefits random charging, nastier magic phase, crazier miscasts, lessened psychology effects, etc will have on any army but from our current frame of reference it's not in certain armies' favor. If we have to wait until we know everything before we can comment why have a thread at all? Just lock the first post and edit it occasionally when people leak stuff.
2889
Post by: Jin
+1 CR for charging is the new confirmed change? Is that really it?
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
You know what, I was writing a reply again, and just realized that I was writing the same words over and over in different forms. It can be summed up as follows:
You haven't read the book, so you don't know. Why not wait before assuming an army will be nerfed? Rumors are almost always slightly but materially inaccurate before a product is released.
I would direct you to things said about the Blood Angels Codex. Even after it was in stores, but not yet released, erroneous information was still being posted alongside messages of doom.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Looking at the rumors now, I am thinking that I need to repaint my Dwarves. (Insert Evil laughter Here).
4042
Post by: Da Boss
To counter, why do you assume the changes will be good? You haven't read the book either. I'm on the fence completely myself, but surely you see that your stance is just a mirror of any person with a complaint, and just as rooted in speculation?
They're pessimists, you're an optimist. That's the difference.
It's going to be a big change. I'm gonna hang on to both my main armies, for sure, and will attempt to get back into the game bigtime. Hopefully, it'll end up as good as 5th 40K or better.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Scotty
it's a rumours thread
people discuss the rumours and speculate
has anyone tried play testing the rumours at any stage to see how the potential changes work or otherwise.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Well, I play WOTR.
735
Post by: JOHIRA
I'm not saying that random charge distances are good, but some of you are going a bit OTT in your moaning about it.
The game will not involve less skill if we switch to random charge bonuses. Being able to weigh the odds of risking a charge is no less a skill than being able to memorize every unit's move distance and guestimate that distance with your eyes on the table top. Both are skills, both are tactical decisions. An opponent who overly depends on getting a lucky charge will be just as easy to beat next edition as they are to beat now- because they won't consistently be able to get that lucky bonus and will fail their charges. You have every right to criticize the change, but don't attack the mental abilities of everyone who doesn't agree with you.
Personally, I have never been a fan of chess-type games. Being able to know exactly how far and in what way every piece can move makes a game too abstract and mathematical for me. I prefer strategic games more in the vein of Rome: Total War, where not every unit moves at exactly the same speed every time, and you have to weigh risks of success on a risky charge versus the consequences of failure. I don't know if the random charge bonus will make the game more like the TW series (unfortunately probably not) but I'm going to at least wait until I've seen all the rules in the new edition before I proclaim that the sky is falling.
7613
Post by: Kiwidru
Disregard that, The Sky Is Falling!!! I would like to see more emphasis on infantry blocks, and core having a purpose... But I'm not so enthused about some of the charge/combat aspects. *please magic before moving*
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
I prefer strategic games more in the vein of Rome: Total War, where not every unit moves at exactly the same speed every time, and you have to weigh risks of success on a risky charge versus the consequences of failure.
Have not played Rome but why do the units not move the same each time? Is it because the generals are rolling dice or is it because of jealous, fickle gods?
Like someone said
2" to charge you have a 1 in 6 chance of not making it
an element of risk is greater the longer the distance of the charge, so a weighted system would be better. But I don't see that happening.
The amount of tinkering going on indicates a flaw in the design. ie somethings look like they are being added to fix something else that was done.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Hold on here. I don't see anything in the "big list of rumors" that says rolling a 1 for the random distance added to a charge means the charge fails.
(Now if it is like that in the final rules, then it's probably a deal breaker for me and I'm out of the hobby.)
As far as everything else goes - I've never been more excited and at the same time more afraid of a rules change.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
The rolling a 1 thing might be an assumption based on the fact that that's how it works for WOTR, however I don't think it's likely given that cavalry roll multiple D6.
It's pretty ganky in WOTR anyway, so I wouldn't miss it if it wasn't in WFB.
|
|
