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.

I thought the 1st page said +1 CR.

I think we should just wait till 8th comes out and then start bitching endlessly. This is dakka after all.

If anyone does hear any snippets about things, it is very important you ask the person telling you when they heard it.

I believe that only really recent info can be considered reliable.

theHandofGork wrote:I think we should just wait till 8th comes out and then start bitching endlessly. This is dakka after all.

There was me thinking that the 'bitching' occurs before, during and after an edition The only time 'bitching' doesn't occur is when an edition can't possibly exist i.e. we can't yet bitch about Warhammer 9th, although the second 8th comes out, bitching about what should be fixed in 9th will no doubt begin. This is dakka after all

For my part, 8th sounds crazy. I can live with crazy, it's boring that stops me playing

Flashman wrote:

theHandofGork wrote:I think we should just wait till 8th comes out and then start bitching endlessly. This is dakka after all.

There was me thinking that the 'bitching' occurs before, during and after an edition The only time 'bitching' doesn't occur is when an edition can't possibly exist i.e. we can't yet bitch about Warhammer 9th, although the second 8th comes out, bitching about what should be fixed in 9th will no doubt begin. This is dakka after all

For my part, 8th sounds crazy. I can live with crazy, it's boring that stops me playing

Man, 9th Edition Fantasy is going to just absolutely RUIN the game!

6th Edition 40K, though, is going to be the best edition of any wargame EVAR!

JOHIRA wrote: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.

Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

^Karon has got it right there^

As stated before tho.. Failing a charge wont be a "you lose the game" type of mistake if its changing to initiative order

It may be more random but its also not as decisive a bonus

Karon wrote:Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

I'm guessing that you totally and completely suck in 40k, because, a lot of 40k charges require a unit to Fleet d6" before Charging. Or deal with Difficult Ground (test on d6s, again). Not to mention units which DS before Charging like Vanguard.

And then there's the issue of "softening up" a unit with a little shooting pre-charge, which opens the risk of too many casualties being pulled from the front.

But yeah, clearly, variable charge distance is going to totally ruin WFB, a game of pseudo-historical Fantasy instead of modern precision and predictability.

Karon wrote:Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

To further emphasize this: Have you ever looked at an Orc player, and immediately thought "Damn, that player must have skill. He plays an army that can either not charge at all or move infantry as fast as heavy cavalry"? If not, why? I mean, it's not like it's much different than the random charge wherein a "good general" plans for his unit either being unable to make that charge 5" away or hinges on a (non-Waaagh! turn) 11" charge. In fact, when Orc players make 11" charges for infantry, I've never once heard "Man, you had some skill planning that out." All I hear is "Lucky git." Same for failing a 5" charge I've never heard "Man, you had some poor planning," but "Wow, that sucks."

Also, onto the "1 = Failed Charge" thing: Sorry if I implied that with my post of 1 = failure, I thought it was clear when I gave "An enemy unit 5.5" away" as the example I was referring to "Did not get a far enough charge" and not "Cannot charge at all".

EDIT: Also, I'm re-checking my math when I get home, but if I wasn't wrong than an Animosity-rolling Orc is actually a minimal loss in percentage over non-Orc armies in odds of making a successful charge - in which case I will apologize. The % they're off right now from another M4 unit making the exact same charge at 7.5"? 1% Of course, having only a 50% chance of making that charge in the first place for the standard M4 unit isn't much better.

Except your talking specifics in 40k, not every unit has to fleet D6 (the majority don't) and usually you shouldn't be charging from difficult ground anyways (or be in diff. ground in the first place)

You can't compare 40k and fantasy, we are talking a general rule that is basically making every unit have to charge through difficult ground + there M value.

Why would a 1 be failed charge? Its not a characteristic test at all.. Thats like saying if you have to roll D6 hits on a magic missile then a 1 fails too.. Totally not the case

Movement + D3 = a number not a test

Karon wrote:

JOHIRA wrote: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.

Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

I guess we must be in Bizarro-land, where having additional variables to consider makes a game less tactical.


You can't KNOW whether something is a good tactical decision before you make it. You use your knowledge of tactics to generate a decision, and that decision ends up being a good one or a bad one. Very rarely does a failed decision end up being the most tactically sound one. A failure is almost always due to some variable you failed to consider or just didn't know.

Adding more variables = more tactical considerations = a more tactical game.

If you don't like the idea of random charge distances adding to the game, don't try to make it sound like it's because it's undermining your tactical genius. If anything, if you were a decent tactician something like this wouldn't bother you so much as it would just make you rethink your approach to the game.

Oh..snap

This is going to be locked soon :( The tactical superiority of WFB has been called into question!!.. Gauntlets are about to be thrown down!

OK, now to turn the whine on it's head:

Why aren't people whining that being 8.5" away from a M4 unit isn't perfectly safe in 8E? In 7E, you could be 100% sure that they wouldn't be able to charge you. But now, there's a 33% chance that they charge 9" or 10".

And really, how often were charges in WFB right at 7.5"?

Did anybody ever charge 6.5" (50%) or less (66%)?

What about the guys who line up 2" behind the edge of the DZ, changing the separation from 24+" to 26+"?


Let's all mourn the passing of Warhammer Pitched Battles on featureless plains, and move on with life. Those of you who refuse to adapt, please PM me, and I'll give you an address you can ship your armies to.

Alternately, you can PM me your address, and I'll send GW to take away your armies!

Hey John.. If you're gonna use my WPB (Warhammer Pitched Battles) name then I want some royalties

I have done the math on Orcs and animosity, and apparently...

They do suck compared to other M4 armies when it comes to charges, at least those between 5.1" and 8". At 8.1"-10", Orcs and Goblins will actually be superior to other M4 units with a 3.3% increase in odds at 8.1-9" and a 6.5% increase in odds at 9.1-10". This doesn't help too much that at 5.1-6" the Orcs are a full 12% under other M4 infantry in terms of percentage, but technically this reduces the percentage gap at the worst by 4%.

Or, in other words: Orcs may have even more horrendous odds of charging (at times) now, but they're closer to other armies percentages now for charges 5-10" in distance and still superior at 10.1"-16".

On this one point I agree completely with you Minsc.. Animosity is a very unfair rule and should be removed for various reasons

Kirasu wrote:Animosity is a very unfair rule and should be removed for various reasons

I think we should see this revised to be far less punitive when the next O&G book comes out.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Animosity is a very unfair rule and should be removed for various reasons

I think we should see this revised to be far less punitive when the next O&G book comes out.

If the Beastmen book's anything to go by, very likely we're going to see it swapped out with something involving a leadership test, unit size, or pretty much something that's a "Take a test, you fail nothing bad happens, you pass you get [x]". Sorta kills what makes Orcs Orcs, but it'd do a lot to increase usability and such.

This is, of course, assuming GW doesn't tell Orc players to bite the bullet and take the above "Slap on another rule" thing in addition to such.

D3 causulties is what I'm hoping. D3 causulties, and only units of 10+ models are vunerable to it. That lets you have some cav without worrying they'll splat themselves, has the flavour of animosity, and isn't crippling.

Ostrakon wrote:

Karon wrote:

JOHIRA wrote: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.

Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

I guess we must be in Bizarro-land, where having additional variables to consider makes a game less tactical.


You can't KNOW whether something is a good tactical decision before you make it. You use your knowledge of tactics to generate a decision, and that decision ends up being a good one or a bad one. Very rarely does a failed decision end up being the most tactically sound one. A failure is almost always due to some variable you failed to consider or just didn't know.

Adding more variables = more tactical considerations = a more tactical game.

If you don't like the idea of random charge distances adding to the game, don't try to make it sound like it's because it's undermining your tactical genius. If anything, if you were a decent tactician something like this wouldn't bother you so much as it would just make you rethink your approach to the game.

What?

Adding an uncontrollable variable is making the game less tactical, yes.

Adding a variable that is definite does make it more tactical.

I've already gave this example a few times.

I'm 7" away with my Gors from a Swordsmen unit, my Gors have M5.

I need to roll a TWO to get the charge.

I roll a

Is that tactical?

1 a : the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat b : the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end

If the game is decided by my opponent rolling better at charging, then its not tactical. Init. based combat isn't tactical either.

And how does this argument relate to WPB? Variable Charge Distance has nothing to do with only playing pitched battle.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote: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?

It's because sometimes the troops are tired.
Sometimes they are running up hill.
Sometimes they are scared.
Sometimes they don't like being in the desert.
Sometimes they don't like being in the snow.
Sometimes they don't understand the general's orders.

There are a ton of variables the game takes into account. Of course, since it's a computer game, the computer can look at all those variables instantly and pop out a speed without the player even thinking about it. A good charge bonus system could reflect that in a table-top game, but it remains to be seen how well GW's system will work.

The point is, more or less randomness does not make a game more or less tactical. It just changes the skill involved in making tactical decisions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

That's not the only way to have a tactical game. Weighing the risks of the unknown can easily be part of a tactical game. In fact, it is a key element of the real-world tactics this game is supposed to simulate.

But even if you outplay your opponent, rolling that 1, when all you need is a 2, and you lose because of it, is terrible.

Variable Charge Distance takes out some tactics involved in the game.

Even if I'm 100 times more skillful than my opponent, that doesn't make me roll 1 more.

Remember, as far as we can tell charging gets you +1 CR. So in a strait unit to unit match up, that is all you are wagering on the charge distance, since you're going to be in that unit's face. Might it be that there is no "failed charge" any more - just roll and move that distance?

It will take away from the "chess" aspect of WFB. I'm good at that, but I'm not sure I'll miss it. Striking in initiative order takes away far more of that than the random charge distance does anyway.

It also allows players to be more aggressive - when two units of heavy cavalry face off, it won't be suicide to advance towards the enemy - something that has always bugged me.

I suppose I am overreacting without taking the full impact that Init. Order will have.

Yeah, I suppose charging really won't MATTER anymore, which is really dumb, and makes no sense.

Chargers strike first is one of the reasons I moved over from 40k to fantasy.

Yay for homenization of 40k and Fantasy.....

kestral: You assume that the enemy was in a race with you to get the charge. What if that "You roll a 1" suddenly means, for instance, you now have an exposed flank (which would have been cleared on the charge, and they have no intention of engaging to the front now). Say that the enemy is a shooty army, Tomb Kings even, and now they can drop two Catapult shots on your regiment's head. Say that you're facing Tzeentch, and that's all that was blocking your foe from dropping an Infernal Gateway on the unit.

Though I still think it's funniest that the people going "It's tactical!" said nothing of the sort when it happened to Orcs. When's the last time you can recall someone on DakkaDakka responding to Animosity with "It's a great rule and other armies should have it, it's a tactical addition to the game!"

Funnily enough, this is actually worse than Animosity as at least with animosity you have (had) a 83% chance of charging the enemy unit 7.5" away, as of now wherein even animosity-free armies have only a 50% chance. It blocks charges more often than Animosity does at any charge distance further than movement plus one.

Karon wrote:But even if you outplay your opponent, rolling that 1, when all you need is a 2, and you lose because of it, is terrible.

And that's a perfectly valid complaint.

Variable Charge Distance takes out some tactics involved in the game.

This is what I'm disagreeing with. It doesn't take out any tactics, it just changes them. Now when you line up that charge you'll have to take into account the chance that you will only get a 1 inch charge bonus. You'll have to weigh it against what you can gain by charging. That's a decision, and any time the player has to make a decision the player is using tactics.

You might lose a game now and then because of an unlikely roll. But by definition if that roll is unlikely, it's not going to happen very often. So your overall win/loss ratio won't change that much.

If the abomination known as random charge distance comes to pass, I wonder how it is going to affect charge reactions.

Karon wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:

Karon wrote:

JOHIRA wrote: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.

Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

I guess we must be in Bizarro-land, where having additional variables to consider makes a game less tactical.


You can't KNOW whether something is a good tactical decision before you make it. You use your knowledge of tactics to generate a decision, and that decision ends up being a good one or a bad one. Very rarely does a failed decision end up being the most tactically sound one. A failure is almost always due to some variable you failed to consider or just didn't know.

Adding more variables = more tactical considerations = a more tactical game.

If you don't like the idea of random charge distances adding to the game, don't try to make it sound like it's because it's undermining your tactical genius. If anything, if you were a decent tactician something like this wouldn't bother you so much as it would just make you rethink your approach to the game.

What?

Adding an uncontrollable variable is making the game less tactical, yes.

Adding a variable that is definite does make it more tactical.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'tactical.'
Adding something static that you can constantly rely on makes the game more strategic. If you can always rely on something to accomplish Task A, then there are no tactics involved. If you can always charge from whatever distance, assuming that you can correctly eyeball that distance, your tactics for the "charge the opponent ASAP" and "avoid getting charged" strategies will never change. This is not tactical at all. It's pure strategy.

However, if you're forced to take every situation you might get charged or might be able to charge, and need to figure out the chances of success or failure in each situations, you actually need to make tactical decisions.

Also, is it even confirmed that 1=autofailed charge?

Karon wrote:But even if you outplay your opponent, rolling that 1, when all you need is a 2, and you lose because of it, is terrible.

Variable Charge Distance takes out some tactics involved in the game.

Even if I'm 100 times more skillful than my opponent, that doesn't make me roll 1 more.

Here's the thing, I just got back from a game and let me tell you, there's enough randomization to screw you over already. I swear I rolled no less than 1/3rd 1s against the guy. His static resolution kept screwing me over. Result was a rather annoying loss.

Surtur wrote:

Karon wrote:But even if you outplay your opponent, rolling that 1, when all you need is a 2, and you lose because of it, is terrible.

Variable Charge Distance takes out some tactics involved in the game.

Even if I'm 100 times more skillful than my opponent, that doesn't make me roll 1 more.

Here's the thing, I just got back from a game and let me tell you, there's enough randomization to screw you over already. I swear I rolled no less than 1/3rd 1s against the guy. His static resolution kept screwing me over. Result was a rather annoying loss.

You played a game using 8th edition rumors?

It provides evidential support for the OMG ITS BORKEN!!11! brigade if they play with an incomplete rumour set and non-FAQd army books.

Otherwise, they couldn't back up their claims on the interwebz.

Makes sense?

I'm confused at people saying 1's are autofails...no, it never has been confirmed.

My example specifically said I was charging with my M5 Gors into a unit of swordsmen 7" away. So if I rolled a 1, it would fail.

Karon wrote:I suppose I am overreacting without taking the full impact that Init. Order will have.

Yeah, I suppose charging really won't MATTER anymore, which is really dumb, and makes no sense.

Chargers strike first is one of the reasons I moved over from 40k to fantasy.

Yay for homenization of 40k and Fantasy.....

This is pure gold Karon.

I'm building my lizardmen after shelving my HEs until the new rules come out.
Initiative strikes first makes Lizardmen almost invariably strike last.
The only reason to move forward is that I don't have any massed long ranged firepower.

Interestingly, I wonder if straight Init. order for H2H will make Great Weapons a much better option for low Init. armies. ie, If I'm gonna strike last, at least it'll be at +2 Str!

I am really chomping at the bit for a preview of these rules though. Must... have... more... information....

Karon wrote:I'm confused at people saying 1's are autofails...no, it never has been confirmed.

My example specifically said I was charging with my M5 Gors into a unit of swordsmen 7" away. So if I rolled a 1, it would fail.

Because if any of us make that claim we can easily be told "Over reacting it's not even in the rules you'll whine about everything!~" That, or a miscommunication / poor reading comprehension. The "What if a 1 is always a failure" has just been speculation from a few users because it's akin to WotR's charges (with banners having a similar effect).

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I'm building my lizardmen after shelving my HEs until the new rules come out.
Initiative strikes first makes Lizardmen almost invariably strike last.

GW: You're relying too heavily on Saurus. Perhaps you should take more Skinks in your army in rank and file, in the new rules you can pile them back eight deep for a static +7 from ranks!

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:The only reason to move forward is that I don't have any massed long ranged firepower.

It's going to be this way for a lot of armies. You can do what I'll probably have to do (drop a huge unit something like 10x5), but the problem here is that it changes WHFB away from Hero Hammer into Deathstar-hammer. This edition I would never field a block of 60 Boyz with Gorbad and a big boss. Next edition, that unit might be a static 7 Stubborn Immune to Panic unit at Leadership 10 with a BSB and fighting in three ranks of two-attack fury.

Scottywan82 wrote:Interestingly, I wonder if straight Init. order for H2H will make Great Weapons a much better option for low Init. armies. ie, If I'm gonna strike last, at least it'll be at +2 Str!

Very unlikely, solely because you're only fighting in one rank now and - even with the reduction in armor save penalties - we're still looking at somewhere between a 16% and 33% drop in durability, in addition to having only six attacks with a six-wide front instead of 12 / 18 / 24 (HW&S / Spear / 2HW [assuming full attacks, 18 otherwise]). You may have a 33% higher wound ratio, but you also are sacrificing between 200, 300, and 400% attacks.

One thing that I think the "Random Charge Bonuses Suck!" crowd is forgeting is that, under these rumours, Banners allow you to re-roll the charge dice. This means, if you are 5.5" away, with M4, and you roll a 1, you canb re-roll it, giving you a 1/36 chance of failing.

Also, Musicians add +1" Charge distance, so a M4 unit now has about a 75% chance of charging further than they could in 7th edition.

Then of Course theres Dwarves...

I could understand some units getting +d6 to their charge but I don't like it. It just seems unnecessary. About the being able to KB your unit str and lower I'm not to worried, case in point Stegadons unit str 10.

FlammingGaunt wrote:I could understand some units getting +d6 to their charge but I don't like it. It just seems unnecessary. About the being able to KB your unit str and lower I'm not to worried, case in point Stegadons unit str 10.

The rumor is unit size, not strength. So ogre size models can KB other ogre size models and smaller. Cavarly, cav size and smaller ect.

Scottywan82 wrote:

Surtur wrote:

Karon wrote:But even if you outplay your opponent, rolling that 1, when all you need is a 2, and you lose because of it, is terrible.

Variable Charge Distance takes out some tactics involved in the game.

Even if I'm 100 times more skillful than my opponent, that doesn't make me roll 1 more.

Here's the thing, I just got back from a game and let me tell you, there's enough randomization to screw you over already. I swear I rolled no less than 1/3rd 1s against the guy. His static resolution kept screwing me over. Result was a rather annoying loss.

You played a game using 8th edition rumors?

Nope, just 7th. As is there is plenty of randomization that can steal a win from you.

On the subject of lizardmen always going last.. Uh we already do? Saurus move 4" thus they rarely get the charge off vs faster enemies.. therefore we strike last every round

SOMETIMES I'll get the charge with them (generally a counter charge).. If you charge a flank Im not too worried about going last anyway since the troops wont be that dangerous

Also going last isnt a big deal because you remove models from the REAR rank and Im going to get 50% more attacks now (If its true you only get 1 attack for the second rank fighting). A lot of these "issues" seem to come from the false belief that you'll be playing the SAME game in the SAME way.. Yes these rules do suck if you simply put them ontop of 7th edition.. but you wont be. As with EVERY new rule set your BEST way to adapt is to totally forget and throw out the old rules and read the new ones 10x over

Dont be "that" guy who still thinks his assault cannon is heavy 3 :(

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Karon wrote:I suppose I am overreacting without taking the full impact that Init. Order will have.

Yeah, I suppose charging really won't MATTER anymore, which is really dumb, and makes no sense.

Chargers strike first is one of the reasons I moved over from 40k to fantasy.

Yay for homenization of 40k and Fantasy.....

This is pure gold Karon.

I'm building my lizardmen after shelving my HEs until the new rules come out.
Initiative strikes first makes Lizardmen almost invariably strike last.
The only reason to move forward is that I don't have any massed long ranged firepower.

Kind of funny, isn't it?

You'll basically lose nothing by just deploying your guys, and just wait for your opponent to come charge you if you really wanted to, lol.

Karon wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Karon wrote:I suppose I am overreacting without taking the full impact that Init. Order will have.

Yeah, I suppose charging really won't MATTER anymore, which is really dumb, and makes no sense.

Chargers strike first is one of the reasons I moved over from 40k to fantasy.

Yay for homenization of 40k and Fantasy.....

This is pure gold Karon.

I'm building my lizardmen after shelving my HEs until the new rules come out.
Initiative strikes first makes Lizardmen almost invariably strike last.
The only reason to move forward is that I don't have any massed long ranged firepower.

Kind of funny, isn't it?

You'll basically lose nothing by just deploying your guys, and just wait for your opponent to come charge you if you really wanted to, lol.

Unless you need to capture an objective, something that will apparently be part of the new missions.

Yeah thats what people thought about 40k and gunlines as well.. but when GW added mandatory missions with objectives that changed quite fast

Its amazing what missions can do to peoples tactics.. You'll see who the "good" players are when they have to think about destroying the enemy AND making sure to capture stuff by end of game

Heh, forget about that part.

It will work out, though I think fantasy is going to be a good bit more boring, and less tactical now that charging gives basically no advantage.

It's because sometimes the troops are tired.
Sometimes they are running up hill.
Sometimes they are scared.
Sometimes they don't like being in the desert.
Sometimes they don't like being in the snow.
Sometimes they don't understand the general's orders.

There are a ton of variables the game takes into account. Of course, since it's a computer game, the computer can look at all those variables instantly and pop out a speed without the player even thinking about it. A good charge bonus system could reflect that in a table-top game, but it remains to be seen how well GW's system will work.

The point is, more or less randomness does not make a game more or less tactical. It just changes the skill involved in making tactical decisions

OK have played Shogun so very similar.
You can mitigate some of those variables by good tactics. You know full well in advance that if you force march troops across the battlefield they will get tired for example. You can make plans for that. You don't make a charge with fresh troops who decide they can't be arsed half way through the charge.
Because it is in real time and the variables computed means there is no comparison with WH.

D6 charges may not be more or less tactical. In which case there is no need for it, since it adds nothing to the game.
There is no skill involved in rolling a dice. Newton's laws greatly assist in the matter. You can make all the brilliant tactical moves you want, just for the god of dice to pee on your strawberries.

In what sense does a greater element of chance translate as tactical acumen?
You cannot mitigate the roll of a dice.
This concept that randomness means greater tactical decision making in WHFB is spurious .

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:D6 charges may not be more or less tactical. In which case there is no need for it, since it adds nothing to the game.

There's no need for most of the rules in most miniature games. You could probably abstract the whole thing down to a couple of dice rolls each turn. That wouldn't make it fun though.

There is no skill involved in rolling a dice. ... ( )
In what sense does a greater element of chance translate as tactical acumen?
You cannot mitigate the roll of a dice.

Sure you can. You can hold back from charging until you are sure you are in range. The die roll has been mitigated.

The skill is in making a decision about how to manage the risk of the roll not coming out the way you want it to. That's definitely a skill.

This concept that randomness means greater tactical decision making in WHFB is spurious .

I never said it means greater- that was someone else. I said it means different tactical decision making.

There's no need for most of the rules in most miniature games. You could probably abstract the whole thing down to a couple of dice rolls each turn. That wouldn't make it fun though.

This is immaterial. You or someone else said that the dice roll charge will neither add to nor detract from the tactical element of the game. If that is so why add it. If you said in your opinion it will improve the tactical game, then that is a matter of opinion with which one may agree or not.
Personally I still find the concept clunky, and seems to have been added to solve other issues that the rule changes have thrown up.

Sure you can. You can hold back from charging until you are sure you are in range. The die roll has been mitigated.

But I was under the distinct impression that you can wait until you are in range, roll and fail. That is what is getting people concerned. The tactical element has been mitigated but not the dice roll. I apologise if I have misunderstood something here.

The skill is in making a decision about how to manage the risk of the roll not coming out the way you want it to. That's definitely a skill.

That is true imho. But wether this will improve the game is questionable. Would be interested to see if anyone has play tested this yet.
IMHO the risk of a failed charge from 2-3 " definitely should be zero. I can see that a charge over a longer distance has more risk involved, though what am not sure.
maybe the re-enanctment afficianodos could provide some info here please?

I never said it means greater- that was someone else. I said it means different tactical decision making.

That would depend on the interpretation of the previous points raised. Am not convinced the risk assessment is quite the same as tactical skill, an aspect of it but not the same.
Apologies for mistaking your comments with someone else's.

NOBODY is going to fail a charge from 2 inches away. Nobody! If the rumor is to be believed, it will be basic Movement plus the dice, not just the dice. I'm not saying that is great; I'm saying people need to stop being so fatalistic about it, weeping and gnashing your teeth because you fear you will fail a charge that is 2 inches away. It's not gonna happen.

If you want to argue about it, at least argue about in terms that will actually be reasonable and practical within the game itself. Using impossibilities does very little to prove your point. Add on top of that, that using impossibilities to argue something that has not been verified and contextualized is silly at best.

Dwarves are gonna be able to triple their charge range 1/6 of the time! Man I'm stoked!!!!!!! Who knew Dwarves would be the new super power!

There's a lot of aggression locked up in those little bodies.

Rated
As I said - I may have misunderstood something
there is no gnashing , no wailing.

a simple explaination would have sufficed.

Sorry but I have no idea, what are these impossibilities you refer to?

The impossibilities I am referring to are failing these minuscule charges, i.e. 2 inches away. It puts things in a different perspective when you have to talk about failing charges 6 inches away. Still not great, I gladly admit, but very different.

The rumors on the first page give us the "best" info on what the charge conditions will be. Thanks to Grimstonefire for staying on top of it, even if I hope some of them are wrong.

Thanks for clarifying, much appreciated Rated.

Hulksmash wrote:Dwarves are gonna be able to triple their charge range 1/6 of the time! Man I'm stoked!!!!!!! Who knew Dwarves would be the new super power!

My dwarves might charge into melee for once like they do in the fluff! Madness!

Hulksmash wrote:Dwarves are gonna be able to triple their charge range 1/6 of the time! Man I'm stoked!!!!!!! Who knew Dwarves would be the new super power!

Has this been confirmed? Beacuse that would be a nasty little charge.

Why are people insisting that variable charge is less tactical?

Variable charge is a game mechanic, nothing more or less. In 7th ed, a unit with move 4" could charge 8", in 8th ed (assuming the rumours are correct), a unit with move 4" will now charge between 5" and 10".

The tactical decision in both cases is where to position yourself to try and get the charge and when to risk charging. The only thing that has changed is the game mechanic - in 7th you had to try and judge distance by eye to inform your decision. In 8th you will have to both judge by eye and consider the probability of a charge succeeding at different ranges.

Yes, there is more to think about, but ultimately the tactical decision is the same one as before - where can I move such that my chances of getting the charge are increased whilst my opponents chances of charging me decrease? Its not any more tactical or any less tactical, its just slightly different.

Hulksmash wrote:Dwarves are gonna be able to triple their charge range 1/6 of the time! Man I'm stoked!!!!!!! Who knew Dwarves would be the new super power!

"I'm wasted on cross country. We dwarves are natural sprinters. Very dangerous over short distances." Gimli - The Two Towers

Flashman wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Dwarves are gonna be able to triple their charge range 1/6 of the time! Man I'm stoked!!!!!!! Who knew Dwarves would be the new super power!

"I'm wasted on cross country. We dwarves are natural sprinters. Very dangerous over short distances." Gimli - The Two Towers

Wow! You win for timely quote!

Alvin
I misunderstood what was meant
still not entirely convinced it is a good thing but is simply a personal opinion.
it has been well discussed so maybe time to let it give way to other rumours for a while.

Dwarves may not be thrown into close combat btw

All I really see when I see the rumors are certain armies getting massive boosts. The biggest problem for some armies (i.e. orcs, dwarves, empire, and maybe a few more) is that their killing stuff has always been in the special slots. But you only ever had 4 special slots which meant that you could never fit in those anvil units and hammer units.

Now Dwarves will be able to field hammerers/slayers/ironbreakers and warmachines for a change. Orcs can field boar boyz/chariots/artillery/black orcs in numbers now.

I see armies with solid core like Warriors/Dwarves/Lizardmen getting a huge boost too. Lizardmen in particular will be nasty if it's just base attacks in extra ranks since with spears that's 3 ranks of 2 attacks each. Even if it's only 1 attack for the extra rank it's still huge and nasty. It's a new age of fantasy and even though we will see those 15 cannon armies....(damn dwarf/empire gunlines) we're gonna see a greater variety overall which will only help I think.

An interesting point, but I'm not sure that allowing 10 cannons (not to mention 4 Helblaster Volley Guns) in a 2000pt game is a fantastic idea.

This edition could become War Machine Hammer...

Flashman wrote:An interesting point, but I'm not sure that allowing 10 cannons (not to mention 4 Helblaster Volley Guns) in a 2000pt game is a fantastic idea.

This edition could become War Machine Hammer...

Let's just call it WM/H for short.

I did the Math. A 25% Rare allocation for Dwarves in a 2000pt game allows for 3 Organ Guns and a Flame Cannon. Nice.

Except that with your example that would barely be possible and any army with flyers wins auto-matically. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's gonna happen. I do think warmachines will see more use but I also think that flyers will as well. And I think chariots are gonna make a big comeback since they can't be insta-killed anymore. There is a whole new world for Fantasy. Makes me glad I haven't played a game since the DE book came out. I won't have as much trouble erasing it as other people

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:I did the Math. A 25% Rare allocation for Dwarves in a 2000pt game allows for 3 Organ Guns and a Flame Cannon. Nice.

I seen your 3 Organ Guns and Flame Cannon and raise you 5 Warp Lightning Cannons. Mmmwwhahahaha!

That's assuming that that slots are also removed as well.

Yeah thats pretty silly.. A lot of war machine costs were based around the fact that you could only have 2 max and then nothing else

Yay my lizardmen can get.. more salamanders?

I have read (and heard) rumours about them limiting the slots by number:

3 x maximum per special choice (e.g. 3 x units of Chaos Knights, or 3 x units of chosen, or 3 x units of forsaken etc)
2 x maximum per rare choice (e.g. 2 x Chaos Spawnn or 2 x chaos giant, or 2 x hellcannon etc)

This doesn't scale terribly well for massive battles, but to be honest it would only be really huge games where anyone would really notice imo.


I've had a pm with another load of rumours, but before posting I'm getting the opinions of other people who have told me things.
That way (hopefully) I will only add things to the sticky that are more likely, than just adding things and saying they are already discredited.

I can't imagine slots and percentages being combined. I suppose it's possible but think about it. If they use both it's a limiting factor only for armies that are character reliant. Only those players go out and buy new stuff. Take out those slot options though and a lot of mid-low tier fantasy armies go out and buy those specials that are killy to add to their army while those character reliant armies also go out and buy stuff. I don't see GW missing out on that opportunity.

And Lizardmen are just getting a boost by having amazing core that are tough and well armored that can fight in up to 3 ranks now Oh and I normally didn't have any extra space in my special slots after Kroxigor and Terridons. But now I can get pick up some Coldone Calvary too

The number of slots could very well be changed for each army. Character reliant armies are allowed to take more while others cannot. Very much like how HE get more special slots and Bretts get more hero slots.

Hulksmash wrote:Now Dwarves will be able to field hammerers/slayers/ironbreakers and warmachines for a change. Orcs can field boar boyz/chariots/artillery/black orcs in numbers now.

While I rarely saw Iron Breakers (barring specific scenarios) and Slayers (barring specific lists) in my GW, Hammers I saw all the time.

Also, what O&G army lists are you looking at? Artillery is one of the few things wielded frequently in a competetive list, let alone fun ones (Doom Divers). Furthermore, there's a reason you don't see Boar Boyz now: They suck. They're overpriced (model-wise) for their stats, and in the case of Savage Orc Boar Boyz both lack durability (at best a 4+ save / 6+ Ward) and have the whole "200pt 5 model unit can't do jack 13% of the game" thing. Unless your whole thing was Orcs can field all five at once, in which case there's no purpose. Or in case you meant Black Orcs and Boar Boyz in large numbers, which is never going to happen because they're too pricey for what they do (O&G special's are often ignored for Artillery not because it's not worth sacrificing the War Machines, but that - barring Chariots - most of it sucks against anything other than either Dwarves or Empire when it comes to a core v special comparison).

Of course, Orc Boar Riders are likely going to get some absurd upgrade next edition (Black Orcs too), but that's it.

Hulksmash wrote:I see armies with solid core like Warriors/Dwarves/Lizardmen getting a huge boost too. Lizardmen in particular will be nasty if it's just base attacks in extra ranks since with spears that's 3 ranks of 2 attacks each. Even if it's only 1 attack for the extra rank it's still huge and nasty. It's a new age of fantasy and even though we will see those 15 cannon armies....(damn dwarf/empire gunlines) we're gonna see a greater variety overall which will only help I think.

I've said it before, and I'll repeat: Orcs & Goblins have only two effective lists now.
List A: Gorbad, Big Boss, Shaman, Fanatic-delivery Gobbo units, Bolt Throwers, 50+ big unit of Big 'Uns carrying Gorbad and - if an Orc Big Boss - the Big Boss. Put all the points in a pretty much unbreakable (Ld 10 re-roll stubborn unit) and just park its ass on top an objective.

List B: If 50% special 25% rare, 5 Doom Diver Catapults, 14 Bolt Throwers, 5 Rock Lobbers, and then cram as many NG Fanatic-delivery units as you can in with a 30pt general (seemingly 3 units w/ 3 Fanatics ATM). Units within 12" of general are still immune to panic, army throws 9D6 S5 hits at whoever manages to get close, and you're putting out 24 No-Save shots a turn (19 of which can theoretically kill 6 ea. a turn, the other 5 even more). If 25% / 25%, it drops to 8 Bolt Throwers, 3 Rock lobbers, 5 Doom Divers, same general, 4 Night Goblin units w/ 3 Fanatics now, and the spare points on NG Big Bosses for a smidge more combat res in your general's unit (well, a bit more actually: it's now a 6x6 unit with two standards (BSB and norm) and five heroes in the front).

Beyond War Machine "Blot out the Sun" and "One mega-huge "SOD OFF 'UUMIES!" Big 'Un Unit" Orc Boy lists, there's not too much that'll be effective.

Minsc we have different views. And yours are more than mildly pessimistic in my view. Maybe your ability greatly exceeds mine tactically and I'm completely in the wrong but I view almost all these changes as excellent.

Oh and Black Orcs are awesome if used properly

Hulksmash wrote:Maybe your ability greatly exceeds mine tactically and I'm completely in the wrong but I view almost all these changes as excellent.

For several armies, they're great yes. Orcs are at a drawback for four reasons:
1) Their combat troops meant to actually kill stuff in hand-to-hand have a 25mm front. That limits the effectiveness of the Horde rule as you have a 250mm front as opposed to the standard 200mm.
2) Their combat troops are mediocre. Not exactly crappy (See: Zombies) when put side-by-side with another army's core, and actually can be superior to some core, but they have nothing that can be classified as an Elite. This wouldn't be a problem, if elite troops couldn't maul non-Elite troops regardless of numbers.
3) They're only a 4+ save at best for their generic soldiers, and more often than not Orc troops are fielded in 6+ save formations. If they had a save to make up for a poor WS and so-so attack capability (Saurus, for example) then they'd be better, but they don't.
4) Initiative 2. On its own, this would be redeemable. With one of the above, it could be salvageable. So-so / poor statline + minimal / no save + striking last against all but Undead & Saurus = "Sweet Gork & Mork, my front ranks just vanished!"

Orcs have always been about characters getting the majority of the combat res wounds that tip the tide, the boyz simply getting enough to prevent the enemy from brutally slaughtering your troops on the charge or being charged. This new edition only further accentuates such, as the superior-stat opponent troops are going to be hitting your mobs with more and harder than they can in this edition. Well, assuming they can reach combat, there is after all going to be 5-10 plates of terrain on the table each game.

Hulksmash wrote:Oh and Black Orcs are awesome if used properly

I've never got them to function "awesome", mostly because they don't really specialize in anything other than "Stupid-high number of S5 attacks on charge", and that's mitigated by #1, #2, and #4. Oh, and they're expensive (140pts for 10, you need at least 18 for the unit to have some semblance of effectiveness, and you need some command). I might have higher opinions about them if I didn't wiff my Animosity & Waaagh! banner rolls (Ever see B-Orcs using both those in one turn fail to charge an enemy unit 12" away? Want to?), but even so they just don't offer much: They can either be HW&S (in which case they have a save, but are a single [meh] WS4 [big meh] S5 [good] attack on the first turn), HWx2 (in which case they have a 5+ save [big meh], WS4 [meh w/ A2 now] S5 [good] and A2... that isn't going to go in initiative order), or GW (which is no save, single WS4 S6 attack). They just can't do much of anything. If used in conjecture with other units they're more effective, but even so you pretty much need to do BOrc on front + BOrcs on flank to get the most out of them (and that happens rarely).

Basically, you look at other army's special units and you see a big gain in stats. You look at BOrcs, you see... +1 to their save, +1 Leadership (most O&G armies are hugging their general anyways) and don't test Animosity (which doesn't matter much as most units worth shoving into the fray are lead by a BOrc or are Goblins anyways). That's it. It's an improvement at a minor point increase, yeah, but it's nothing like the jump from HE Spearman to Swordmaster, or Dwarf Warrior to Hammerers, or Marauders to Chaos Warriors, or Saurus v Templeguard. You just gain too little.

O&G are at a disadvantage as they were written in 7th Edition when they were meant to sit on even terms with late 6th Edition lists (which even then they had some trouble). 8th Edition is basically going to be rounding out (making a parity) for late 7th lists, which Orcs already can barely compete with exploiting rules that are still more disadvantageous to the cheesey lists than advantageous (Warriors of Chaos suffer more penalties to armor, Black Guard can't fight in two ranks, etc).

One thing that hasnt been brought up.. Some of the older books have units that up Hero and lord slots, or lord and rare slots.. I wonder how percentages work with that?

Being not too up on Fantasy I like the idea of some of these "rumored" rules and I'm interested to see how they'll fit in with everything else.

That being said I never liked the whole "Line up and shoot at stuff, move your stuff in some complex geometric dance and then charge, break the enemy and hope his army runs off the board". The focus on Objectives and only Core units being able to score/hold sounds like a direction for Fantasy that seems more fun and intuitive rather than reenacting the Revolutionary War every game where x army represents the US and Y army represents the Redcoats.

It might even get my friends interested. I'm hoping the starter box is priced around the same as the current BFSP.

@Kirasu
I'm guessing they will errata all those.

If they want people using them as a general/character then they'll only fall in that category.

Fateweaver wrote:only Core units being able to score/hold sounds like a direction for Fantasy that seems more fun and intuitive

Actually, if it is only core, (Current rumors point towards units with a banner), then it is not more intuitive, it is rather hamfisted and gamey same as the 40k Troops only scoring is.

@skyth: I'd expect Fantasy to require bricks with flags to be Scoring.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@skyth: I'd expect Fantasy to require bricks with flags to be Scoring.

I'd expect all of three books before individual lists have non-Core models that are allowed to capture things anyways. Probably only six or seven until almost a whole army is given the capability.

Minsc wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@skyth: I'd expect Fantasy to require bricks with flags to be Scoring.

I'd expect all of three books before individual lists have non-Core models that are allowed to capture things anyways. Probably only six or seven until almost a whole army is given the capability.

I expect that the requirement will be non-skirmisher and a Standard. Not that the unit be core. But it's just a guess.

Having the standard be a requirement doesn't make much sense in light of other rumors. If they are going to a scenario based as opposed to VP based victory conditions, there is no real reason not to take a standard.

It does limit the number of scoring units though. And, with capturing of standards, they can limit it even further.

Even better, no flag = no contest.

Instead of Killpoints it's Flagpoints?

Minsc wrote:

List B: If 50% special 25% rare, 5 Doom Diver Catapults, 14 Bolt Throwers, 5 Rock Lobbers,

Ridiculous things like this is why the rumour that slots remain in the Percentage system makes more sense.

Otherwise, it's not fixing ANYTHING, because you can squeeze in 37 Warlock Engineers(or 8 Lvl 1 Engineers) into a 2250 List.

I can see them keeping a maximum # of choices + percentages because the # of choices per point level is already printed in each book

Then all they have to do is put in the rulebook "This is also the cap"

Maybe you can return enemy standards to your base! first person to 3 wins

Kirasu wrote:I can see them keeping a maximum # of choices + percentages because the # of choices per point level is already printed in each book

Then all they have to do is put in the rulebook "This is also the cap"

Maybe you can return enemy standards to your base! first person to 3 wins

To be honest, that would be terrible for fantasy... besides slow moving (especially when march blocked). The use of magic/shooting armies would be terrible and cause games such as these to take for ever... They would actually have to go try to kill the opposing army (and probably fail) or sit back which means it will take forever for the other army to reach them then walk all the way back...

Someone needs to play more FPS games to get the joke!

I'll copy it over in full later, but the rumours I added to the sticky today:

There *may* be something to prevent spamming...

The first rumour about this;

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.


There will be no CR bonus for Outnumbering the enemy.

ASF + higher initiative than your enemy: Reroll to hit rolls. (note: imo this is a direct 'fix' for the swordmasters and white lions)

Warmachines: 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.

Welp time to start an Empire gunline. I wonder how no guessing works for cannons because suddenly Hellstorm Rocket Batteries might have just got broken.

Also no guess along with Screaming Skull Catapults or any Skaven template weapons is going to make games super not fun.

Good players always guess right on anyways

This will stop the arguments about overguessing though.

If you don't need to guess anymore I can definatly see stone throwers and their ilk becoming much more popular. Doomdiver anyone?

Kirasu wrote:Someone needs to play more FPS games to get the joke!

Really? My first thought was "grab a BB gun and go outside", CTF was invented by the FPS gaming, nor was KotH.
____

Grimstonefire wrote:Special Choices: No more than 3 of the same type

Warmachines: 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.

I think I just heard an Empire player wet himself in the distance over thoughts of 3 Great Cannon backed by a trio of Mortars...

This is obvious.

Yay for more homogenization of 40K and WHFB.

I mean come on.

It's cleaner and faster. Speeds the game up and eliminates certain abuses that were legit under the old rules. Also makes artillery worth it.

Boycott is over baby...I'm jumping all over 8th I'm getting really good vibes about this

If WFB takes the speed of 40k and gets rid of the needless rules of 7th edition then I say mixing is a good thing

Karon wrote:Yay for more homogenization of 40K and WHFB.

I mean come on.

Once more, you'll notice that a lot of the people who are loving the new WHFB rules are also saying that it becoming more like 40K is a good thing. If I'm going to play a 40K-like game, I'll just play 40K. It's that simple.

It is not homogenization, it is learning from success. There's a lot about 40k I don't like, so I stopped playing it a few years ago. There are also some things that I do like about 40k though, and it seems that it is those rules making the transition into Fantasy, which I think is a good thing. I am pleased with most of the rumored changes so far; I will make due with the rest.

If it's 25% max for characters, I'm done. That means in a 2k game I can't even take Sigvald, the Slaanesh special character I was SO excited about, after Slaanesh got completely ignored for so long.

That aside, in standard 2250 games I could bring him, but then that's the ONLY character I could take. I can't even take a chaos lord and a BSB with that limitation. I'm not a fan of having half my army characters, but when I can ONLY take a SINGLE good character, it sucks.

And my VC are pretty much done too. VC depends on characters, and a lord with magic items/abilities plus 3 vampires with items/abilities generally comes out to half the army, which in my opinion is how VC SHOULD be played. They aren't "uber" characters that dominate the field, hell they're naked 2 wound T4 models. Hardly hero hammer, especially once the horde is summoned and on full steam ahead.

And now if chaos warriors buy shields, they can't march ever? I can't believe that.

There's almost no way to guess so well that you will perfectly maximize templates. While you can be very accurate with a guess weapon, simply placing it over the unit allows you to tag upwards of 20 models and this will hit with 33% accuracy and that's with the SMALL template. This will be even more crazy with Skaven shooting that doesn't allow partials. I know 40k players are going crazy that there's one less step, but templates in Fantasy have a lot more impact due to clustered infantry units so they should not be so accurate. Over guessing and cannon sniping aren't as big an issue anymore since characters can be targeted out anyway unlike in 6th edition. This is a stupid change that I hope is a bogus rumor.

People that are excited for mass infantry armies are in for a surprise when their units are gunned off the field in two turns from massed template weaponry.

Start playing bigger games. I think 2500 is going to be come the new standard for my group.

@ Spellbound: If chaos warrirors take shields they can still march. You should go back and read what Grim has posted about heavy cavalry. It's highlighted red.

Spellbound wrote:If it's 25% max for characters, I'm done. That means in a 2k game I can't even take Sigvald, the Slaanesh special character I was SO excited about, after Slaanesh got completely ignored for so long.

That aside, in standard 2250 games I could bring him, but then that's the ONLY character I could take. I can't even take a chaos lord and a BSB with that limitation. I'm not a fan of having half my army characters, but when I can ONLY take a SINGLE good character, it sucks.

And my VC are pretty much done too. VC depends on characters, and a lord with magic items/abilities plus 3 vampires with items/abilities generally comes out to half the army, which in my opinion is how VC SHOULD be played. They aren't "uber" characters that dominate the field, hell they're naked 2 wound T4 models. Hardly hero hammer, especially once the horde is summoned and on full steam ahead.

And now if chaos warriors buy shields, they can't march ever? I can't believe that.

They wont be "done".. Believe it or not vampire counts have more than just ghouls, zombies and grave guard.. With fear not being autobreak vamp players might actually have to adapt to tactics other than "raise guys.. hope i out number"

Infreak wrote:@ Spellbound: If chaos warrirors take shields they can still march. You should go back and read what Grim has posted about heavy cavalry. It's highlighted red.

The highlighted red part says that if you have 3+ save or better, you can't march. Chaos Warriors have a 3+ base save if they have shields (2+ in hth)

Rated G wrote:Start playing bigger games. I think 2500 is going to be come the new standard for my group.

I have a feeling it will be 3,000. Everyone mentions codex creep, this is scale creep. More models to buy, more money to GW (or maybe Mantic )

skyth wrote:

Infreak wrote:@ Spellbound: If chaos warrirors take shields they can still march. You should go back and read what Grim has posted about heavy cavalry. It's highlighted red.

The highlighted red part says that if you have 3+ save or better, you can't march. Chaos Warriors have a 3+ base save if they have shields (2+ in hth)

It also goes on to say "heavy armour and shield would allow you to march, as the +1 HW & shield is only in combat." So marching would still be allowed.

Chaos Warriors have chaos armor and a natural 3+ save with shields.

Also I'd like to know what tactics that Vampire counts will have to adapt to with this new system since the army is pretty limited with no shooting, and with a heavy character and magic focus. Not sure how any of the units in the current book get any more useful with the new rumors although great weapon grave guard get crappier, Banner of the Blood Keep is fairly pointless and there's a reason to not give Black Knights barding.

Ixquic wrote:Also I'd like to know what tactics that Vampire counts will have to adapt to with this new system since the army is pretty limited with no shooting, and with a heavy character and magic focus. Not sure how any of the units in the current book get any more useful with the new rumors although great weapon grave guard get crappier, Banner of the Blood Keep is fairly pointless and there's a reason to not give Black Knights barding.

Obviously Skeletons - WS2, S3, A1, 5+ save models - just became competitive as they can easily do wounds in comb- oh wait a minute. Hm, what about a 50+ big unit of Skeletons? There's no way they can wipe it out fast enough for your mages to be unable to supplemen- oh wait. Well, at least your unit is now stubbo- no. Hm...

Perhaps if you count every Skeleton as Richter Kreuger...

Minsc wrote:

Karon wrote:Yay for more homogenization of 40K and WHFB.

I mean come on.

Once more, you'll notice that a lot of the people who are loving the new WHFB rules are also saying that it becoming more like 40K is a good thing. If I'm going to play a 40K-like game, I'll just play 40K. It's that simple.

I concur. WHFB is not 40k. While I certainly have a preference of swords and magic over guns and tanks, my primary concern is that 40k too often devolved into a shootout and was relatively stale. 5E changed this up, but I still find WHFB more exciting and more tactically challenging than 40k. Maybe my opinion isn't a popular one, and maybe it's because I don't yet have a lot of experience playing it (a whole 4 or 5 games so far), but 40k seems more won or lost during roster creation and deployment than on the table. In WHFB, it's a bit harder: you can either balance out your usefulness in all phases, or choose one/two to dominate. For instance, my Warriors of Tzeentch are built to dominate the magic phase, then mop up in combat. My Dark Elves dominate the movement phase (arguably the most important phase of the game). My Empire can either balance out or go gunline. I like the options, and I can do almost anything.

The more 'rumors' I hear, the less I like. I guarantee that if guessing goes away (like they did with 40k) then my Empire army will suddenly become scary as hell (especially if partials are gone from my mortars).

If partials go away, any army with Template weapons is going to be scary when facing pretty much anything. Once more, this isn't like 40K for template weapons.

Imagine if you will that 40K Squads must wander around like a freshly deep-striking squad (all models in base-to-base). Now imagine they're hit by a Frag Missile. Now, imagine the center model under the hole is hit at S8. It gets better. Now, imagine that all those hit don't have their regular armor save - if they have an Invuln, they keep it.

Oh, and as final icing on the cake, if the cake, if those are multi-wound models, they each take D6 wounds instead of the standard 1. Did we mention how against 20mm regiments, those direct hits can get a nice 21 models touched (16 partials, 5 full hits)? The reason you have to guess is so that you require some skill to potentially hit 21 models in a single shot.

Um, guessing isn't a "skill". At least, not after the first shot...

Not even for the first shot if you can do basic math.....

And the amount of time it took a lot of people to do that math is frustrating in the extreme. Makes games faster! And by this I mean friendly games or pick up games. Tournament players know there is a time limit and act accordingly most of the time but since there is no limit set on friendly games it can get just silly....

Keep the awesome sauceness of rumors coming!

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

Barbed razordons are already a long way behind salamanders but with the boost this will give sallies, they should be 100-120 a pop. At a tourney a couple weekends ago I had 2 causing 15-20 hits per turn with the current rules. that would easily go 30+ under the new rules.

Brilliant.

I'm not sure I like where we're heading, but I'll certainly give it a fair shake...

Agreed, guess weapons serve no purpose other than to perpetuate a fallacy that somehow guessing is skillful.. Just be done with it and go with direct placement + scatter. It has the same result and its faster

Oh, and btw, I forgot to post this, from a very long standing member, and a GW store owner over at Relicnews.

Guys, I was in Vegas and I did not recieve a 'sheet'. You have been bullshitted.

Lots of negativity spawning around here based on some pretty thin rumors and theory hammering.

The game is going to change, period. It will be 8th edition, not 7.5th edition. If you hate the new rule set completely, hold on to your 7th ed stuff and play it out that way...but the key word here is set. It's a set of rules, not just a couple of changes in a vacuum.

Taken by themselves you might find yourself scratching your head or just upset. Looking at the rules and the game as a whole will very likely give a better understanding of what's going on.

So yeah.

Actual thread can be found here: http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=246971

Interesting.

And yes, I think most of are going to wait until the sky is falling to start yelling about the fact that the sky is falling.

Maybe.

Kirasu wrote:Agreed, guess weapons serve no purpose other than to perpetuate a fallacy that somehow guessing is skillful.. Just be done with it and go with direct placement + scatter. It has the same result and its faster

This might work well if they issue new scatter dice with only 1 'HIT' symbol better representing the difficulty of dropping the missile directly on target. A 1/3 chance is just a little too good and you would start seeing more Engineers in Empire/Dwarf armies!

Characters should also have a 2+ save against war machine fire full stop. You can't hit an individual with cannons/mortars unless you're really lucky. A British general (Gough?) in the Sikh Wars understood this and during one battle, galloped off to his flank to draw enemy artillery fire away from his infantry. It worked too. They threw everything they had at him and he didn't get a scratch.

@Karon

Most of the posted rumors have been confirmed by people who have an amazing track record. But I agree that most of the rumored rules changes do point to entirely different way to play. It's a lot like what they did with 5th edition 40k. It's not a 100% reboot like 40k 3rd or Fantasy 6th but it's going to be a much bigger change than 7th was.

I'm personally super excited about the changes and can't wait until the new rules come out. Especially since they seem to heavily favor armies I play (dwarves and ogres). Now I'd be excited anyway but the idea of Dwarves being able to brawl because 2/3 of the time you need to get them off an objective is amazing!

@Hulksmash
In terms of my sticky, only some of the rumours have been confirmed by people who have an amazing track record.

I have had to go much further afield than I would normally do for sources, because the information is so contradictory.

I'm excited for my Dwarves as well. Could make fighty dwarves work! That'd be great.
I would hope that the new guess stuff would always scatter though, possibly 2D6-BS or something. Getting a direct hit 1/3 of the time would be mental!

From first post:

Heavy cavalry - Avian says this is possibly speculation
# [*]- Rumoured to be something like this:
All infantry and cavalry models (i.e. smaller than ogre sized) with a passive non-magical save of 3+ or better cannot march move. I.e. heavy armour and shield would allow you to march, as the +1 HW & shield is only in combat.

Brettonians and Dwarfs will be exempt

I hope this is rubbish.
Otherwise most heavy cav will be slower than infantry units and chaos warriors will be absolutely rubbish.

I'm still liking WEs.
Multiple units of 20 Glade guard in 2 ranks (10 wide) so all can shoot and they are stubborn Ld8.
Every army I look at that has a bow type weapon ends up with me making lists with 100-160 archers in it at 2000 points. I hope there will be some caveat to this shoot in 2 ranks..

Not like stubborn matters for shooty units.. If someone charges you you're prob dead anyway

@Grimstone

True, But the ones that have been confirmed are the ones that make the biggest difference for my dwarves and are the changes I'm looking most forward to

@Waaagh

If they take away the -1" for barding they'll be the same speed as the infantry. Which actually makes sense since all that weight would blow the horses out extremely fast. But I'd take it worth a grain of salt until we actually see it since it would hurt to many armies out there. Heck even Cold One Knights would be moving at a crawl (LM or DE). And it would be just silly that DE's are 33% faster on foot than mounted.

Kirasu wrote:Not like stubborn matters for shooty units.. If someone charges you you're prob dead anyway

Dwarves and Orcs at T4 would like to have a word with you For a lot, however, I'd concur. T3, often lacking any sort of save (another Dwarf advantage - 4+ save potential), rarely above Ld8, and so on.

Once more, rumors are really supporting Orc gunline. However, now they really dis-support 50+ big blocks of troops: I'm fine enough with luck Plague Catapults hitting 24+ models in a single shot. Having multiple be able to slap on a direct hit for maximized models before scatter is just going to turn a 50 big block into a casualty sink. Now, 8+ War Machines at 2K points, that's harder to counter.

Also, I'm going to have to check my army book, but I might have found a really good thing for Orcs: The Spirit Totem - if I don't recall wrong - is "+1 Dispel Dice per rank". Without the "Up to a maximum of +3" clause that the Pig Stikka has. And only requires an Orc to be carrying it, not an Orc unit.

Hello, 150pt Night Goblin unit for +9 Dispel Dice.

Hulksmash wrote:@Karon

Most of the posted rumors have been confirmed by people who have an amazing track record. But I agree that most of the rumored rules changes do point to entirely different way to play. It's a lot like what they did with 5th edition 40k. It's not a 100% reboot like 40k 3rd or Fantasy 6th but it's going to be a much bigger change than 7th was.

I'm personally super excited about the changes and can't wait until the new rules come out. Especially since they seem to heavily favor armies I play (dwarves and ogres). Now I'd be excited anyway but the idea of Dwarves being able to brawl because 2/3 of the time you need to get them off an objective is amazing!

No, what I posted was a response to this.

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.

So basically, patrickparker came on, spewed so me bs for us to rage about

The last time they did a full reset they needed to reset all of the army lists.

I cannot workout how they are going to balance it all with such extensive changes.

They did a fine job with 5th edition 40k which had just as extensive of changes overall and didn't have to redo all the codexes. It's not a full reset. It's a overhaul which is different. The framework will still be the same. Certain rules within those same parameters will change. And heres to hoping they get it right like they did with 5th 40k.

Assuming Skaven and Beasts were written with 8th in mind (or at least they better had been!), I expect the main races (Empire, High Elves, Orcs, Dwarves) will get updates relatively quickly.

That said, it's not that straightforward as recent Dakka polls show that players are quite evenly split in Fantasy. You could therefore argue that there are no major races in Fantasy (just ones that are an easy "sell" to beginners).

I'm quite happy to roll with all the changes anyway. We'll call this edition Crazy Hammer

Hulksmash wrote:They did a fine job with 5th edition 40k which had just as extensive of changes overall and didn't have to redo all the codexes. It's not a full reset. It's a overhaul which is different. The framework will still be the same. Certain rules within those same parameters will change. And heres to hoping they get it right like they did with 5th 40k.

See, that's just wrong. Even as a relative on-40k player, I can tell that 5E boned some codices - I hear it in my local store all the time. And 5E did NOT have as extensive a change as these rumors suggest - the framework was the same and they changed a few things, and threw in some new scenarios to force list balancing, but the FOC remained the same and the method for fighting combat remained the same.

These rumors are changing how we're allowed to build lists (not done of 40k), how the movement phase works (not done for 40k), how the maic phase works (not done for 40k, though the psychic rules are a little easy in my opinion), and how combat plays out (combat resolution was tweaked, but the actual rules were largely the same). This is FAR more drastic.

And yes, they DO have to redo all the books. Too many books are so ridiculously oudated that some border on unplayble. If most of these rumors are true, I expect to see something along the lines of Ravening Hordes released alongside the new rulebook, as certain armies will move into the realm of unplayble.

If the goal is to rebalance the books, then they succeeded: some new armies will move into the "suck" (VC) tier, while new armies will move into the "why AREN'T you playing them?!" (Empire) tier.

And yes, they DO have to redo all the books. Too many books are so ridiculously oudated that some border on unplayble. If most of these rumors are true, I expect to see something along the lines of Ravening Hordes released alongside the new rulebook, as certain armies will move into the realm of unplayble.

If the goal is to rebalance the books, then they succeeded: some new armies will move into the "suck" (VC) tier, while new armies will move into the "why AREN'T you playing them?!" (Empire) tier.

Only really answer to that is..

and...?

This only happens every time ANYTHING is changed with 40k or fantasy.. Its not like its anything new and its pretty much the same throughout the world with actual real events as well.. Most things in life fall between the average amounts, some are at the highest point and some at the lowests points

This is not new and will never change.. Just yeah it sucks to be the guy at the lowest point

@Manfredd

There were a lot of changes that were added to the basic framework of 40k in 5th. It was a massive change to the way the game played and was played. The fact that it was more subtle doesn't change the fact that 5th edition plays like a new game. You can ask most of the big 40k guys and they'll tell you the same thing.

And to be fair, fantasy needs this much more than 4th edition 40k did. And yea, Kirasu said it best. There is always gonna be a totem pole. But at least in 40k there is only really 1 army at the bottom cough::necrons::cough. As opposed to only having 3 power army books like fantasy.

Kirasu wrote:Only really answer to that is..

and...?

Some armies now literally cannot play a game under certain point levels (Bretonnia and Tomb Kings the most heavily hit, with their need to have two characters and the fact that said characters fielded naked are no-where near as effective as something such as a naked Exalted Champion in WHFB or a naked Necron Lord in 40K). Furthermore, "Rules change" doesn't seem like an entirely valid counter to complaints about armies being made difficult / impossible to play. It's a good counter to asking why they have to change, but when it comes to countering why someone's upset it's about as good as being told off in an argument "Because I say so."

Kirasu wrote:This is not new and will never change.. Just yeah it sucks to be the guy at the lowest point

Debatably: Empire's at one of the lower points ATM (for non-Lector & Stank armies anyways), and they're going to absolutely love the "no partial" and "no guess" rumors. Similarly, Vampire Counts are one of the higher point armies and it's really not going to enjoy losing 1-2 characters in addition to harsher magic and a (potential) shift to less efficient infantry.

Hulksmash wrote:There were a lot of changes that were added to the basic framework of 40k in 5th.

I think his point was more related to the fact that shooting phase was the most heavily (though, to be fair, appears to be more modified than any one phase in WHFB) modified of 40K, with the assault and move phases relatively untouched. WHFB, all phases are being hit and most of them hard. Movement phase starts with a 'small' change of moving from double-move to D6's for charge range. It then gets modified more from there when some units are restricted from marching, reform rules are being changed in a way that seemingly negates the use of Fast Cavalry (free reform), modifiers are being applied due to equipment that didn't apply such before (re-roll charge D6's, additional movement, greater reform capabilities).

Next comes magic, which is changing in how dice are generated, how spells are cast, how miscasts are acquired, how irresistible force interacts with the table, and - possibly - even how spell generation is done.

Shooting starts small for regular troops: Less modifiers to armor (little impact for most non-S4 shooters), and firing in two ranks with bows. Then War Machines come, however, and they are changed a lot. No more guessing, no more partials. Those two rules, though sounding like little, are big for anyone who has ever either seen a stone thrower land dead-on with a lucky guess into the center of one's formation, or if they've been the one to launch said stone into the center of someone's formation. However, for the most part, this is the least changed rule.

Finally comes the combat phase, which is easily arguable as a peer to 40K's shooting phase when it comes to changes. Combat resolution has been changed around a lot, some bonuses completely removed while others are either brand new or modified to be more or less effective. "Chargers strike first" has been negated with initiative order the rule of the day, which similarly changes Great Weapons from "Go first on charge, last otherwise" to "last at all times". Units are fighting in deeper ranks with more attacks being thrown out and new close-combat weapon rules. Width now influences not only how many guys are fighting in base-to-base, but also whether you get even more attacks from a ten wide front as well as potentially giving your unit the rule of stubborn - a rule that can turn any combat that doesn't involve a flanking action into one gigantic meat grinder until either you break the enemy or they manage to take you down to a smaller front than them. This has been barring stuff such as changes to what counts as a unit frontage, removal of unit strength, and so on.

While you can make some comparisons to what happened in 40K, those were more "isolated" in what phases they applied to. WHFB, not so much.

I'm hanging for what they are going to do to chariots, because they are going to get smashed with the new combat res and deeper ranks rules.
Unless you will be required to combo chargemultiple chariots or charge alongside ranked units. Stegadons will also fall into that category.

On deep thought whilst running I'm now all for the deeper ranks of fighting so that at least you do get to fight back.
Using an otherwise unmodified combat system I think it would have great potential.

Minsc wrote:] Some armies now literally cannot play a game under certain point levels (Bretonnia and Tomb Kings the most heavily hit, with their need to have two characters and the fact that said characters fielded naked are no-where near as effective as something such as a naked Exalted Champion in WHFB or a naked Necron Lord in 40K).

Meh!

There are always gonna be issues when the core rules change. As far as the army list go, these are very minor problems. Would you prefer ALL army books were invalidated, or that 2 of the oldest lists (both Bretonians and Tomb Kings were written for 6th ed) have glitches that will rarely be relevant and are easily corrected by an errata or house rule? Are games of under 860 points (or 480 for Brets) so very enshrined in your gaming group that you can't bump the points up to an even thousand (or 500 for brets) to accommodate your friends army?

Tomb Kings are already unplayable under virtually any points limit.. Not much is changing with them, moving on

Brettonians use an outdated book anyway and are very very very one dimensional.. Cant imagine theyre a very fun army to play given I can almost close my eyes and know the set up a bretonnian player is going to do and the list hes going to play before i see it

Kirasu wrote:Brettonians use an outdated book anyway and are very very very one dimensional.. Cant imagine theyre a very fun army to play given I can almost close my eyes and know the set up a bretonnian player is going to do and the list hes going to play before i see it

And they're also very good, quite a few at my LGS cleaning up ... If they're still able to march we might be seeing even more I'd reckon, but at least stacked armor & ward saves won't be happening

On the 25% character front, I spent some time today running through my builds and seeing how badly the drop from ~33% (where my lists are at) to 25% is. In short: not great. Basically looking at lord + bsb OR support caster, which is a choice I'm not in love with, particularly in my level 4 led builds.

- Salvage

Boss_Salvage wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Brettonians use an outdated book anyway and are very very very one dimensional.. Cant imagine theyre a very fun army to play given I can almost close my eyes and know the set up a bretonnian player is going to do and the list hes going to play before i see it

And they're also very good, quite a few at my LGS cleaning up ... If they're still able to march we might be seeing even more I'd reckon, but at least stacked armor & ward saves won't be happening

On the 25% character front, I spent some time today running through my builds and seeing how badly the drop from ~33% (where my lists are at) to 25% is. In short: not great. Basically looking at lord + bsb OR support caster, which is a choice I'm not in love with, particularly in my level 4 led builds.

- Salvage

I threw together an Empire list using the proposed percentages, and even factored in the speculated 'anti-spam' method, using 2000 points:

Count - 206
Full Plate, Shield, Barded Warhorse, Sword of Sigismund, Holy Relic

Battle Wizard - 115
2 Dispell Scrolls

Master Engineer - 85
Hochland Long Rifle

Master Engineer - 85
Hochland Long Rifle

Swordsmen - 194
x24, Full Command, War Banner
-10 Free Company (50)
-10 Free Company (50)

Handgunners - 110
Musician, Marksman with HLR

Handgunners - 110
Musician, Marksman with HLR

Pistoliers - 168
x8, Musician, Marksman with Repeater Pistol

Mortar - 75
Mortar - 75
Mortar - 75

Cannon - 100
Cannon - 100
Cannon - 100

Steam Tank - 300

There's a gunline I wouldn't want to mess with.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Pistoliers - 168
x8, Musician, Marksman with Repeater Pistol

Mortar - 75
Mortar - 75
Mortar - 75

Cannon - 100
Cannon - 100
Cannon - 100

*vomits in mouth a little bit*

Aren't all of those special choices? So you figuring on slot limitations falling, to be replaced with just max percentage?

But point taken on Empire's nastiness. It seems like those mid-to-low tier armies that don't really rely on characters (and have guns) could be looking to win out. Oh, also dark elves. I hope I haven't launched into this on Dakka yet, but what rumored change actually hurts DE? Like, in a way that matters? My favorite 'boost' that I realized today - seriously, I find a new one with every batch of rumors - was the non-hero assassins being utterly unaffected. I suppose they can't kill entire units now by themselves, if the unit has ranks and is stubborn

- Salvage

Boss_Salvage wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Brettonians use an outdated book anyway and are very very very one dimensional.. Cant imagine theyre a very fun army to play given I can almost close my eyes and know the set up a bretonnian player is going to do and the list hes going to play before i see it

And they're also very good, quite a few at my LGS cleaning up ... If they're still able to march we might be seeing even more I'd reckon, but at least stacked armor & ward saves won't be happening

On the 25% character front, I spent some time today running through my builds and seeing how badly the drop from ~33% (where my lists are at) to 25% is. In short: not great. Basically looking at lord + bsb OR support caster, which is a choice I'm not in love with, particularly in my level 4 led builds.

- Salvage

Exactly what I saw in my beastmen list, but I figured it out pretty well. Of course, beastmen are a bit easier since we have cheaper gak.

It is hard to get all the goodies, though.

Yeah, I figured that 'slots' would go away - having slots AND percentages seems a little over the top.

but what rumored change actually hurts DE? Like, in a way that matters?

Same rules as above:

Dreadlord - 282
Cold One, Halberd, SDC, Potion of Strength, Pendant of Khaleth, Armor of Eternal Servitude

Master - 214
BSB, Cold One, Lance, HA, Shield, SDC, Hydra Banner

Dark Riders - 117
x5, Musician, RXBs

Dark Riders - 117
x5, Musician, RXBs

Dark Riders - 117
x5, Musician, RXBs

Dark Riders - 117
x5, Musician, RXBs

Harpies - 55
x5

Cold One Knights - 235
x5, Full Command, Ring of Hotek, Banner of Hag Graef

Cold One Chariot - 100

Cold One Chariot - 100

Shades - 90
x5, Great Weapons

War Hydra - 175

War Hydra - 175

Reaper Bolt Thrower - 100

Like, in a way that matters?

I guess not.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:Yeah, I figured that 'slots' would go away - having slots AND percentages seems a little over the top.

No, it doesn't.

Being able to field 9+ Specials(or 15+ characters in the case of Skaven and Gobbos) because you happen to get low cost ones is what's over the top.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

I threw together an Empire list using the proposed percentages, and even factored in the speculated 'anti-spam' method, using 2000 points:

Count - 206
Full Plate, Shield, Barded Warhorse, Sword of Sigismund, Holy Relic

Battle Wizard - 115
2 Dispell Scrolls

Master Engineer - 85
Hochland Long Rifle

Master Engineer - 85
Hochland Long Rifle

Swordsmen - 194
x24, Full Command, War Banner
-10 Free Company (50)
-10 Free Company (50)

Handgunners - 110
Musician, Marksman with HLR

Handgunners - 110
Musician, Marksman with HLR

Pistoliers - 168
x8, Musician, Marksman with Repeater Pistol

Mortar - 75
Mortar - 75
Mortar - 75

Cannon - 100
Cannon - 100
Cannon - 100

Steam Tank - 300

There's a gunline I wouldn't want to mess with.

I would trade out the tank for two Hellstorm Rocket Batteries. If the rumor that there are no more scatters is true those things just got broken.

Karon 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.

So basically, patrickparker came on, spewed so me bs for us to rage about

This is a News and Rumors section so I was just informing you all of what I saw, it could of just been a sheet to sort out the rotten apples in gw. Besides most of these rumors where posted already, except for the Panic change, but we will all see when the rules come out.

You said definite rule changes, sir.

That's not a rumor, and you lead us on that all of that was true. (We thought they we're rumors, as we now know they still are.

Not saying anything against you (though it does look like I did in my post, apologies. I'm just saying, that those aren't definite, since if they really wanted people to know, they would have handed them out to all store owners, not one token store.

Platuan4th wrote:

Manfred von Drakken wrote:Yeah, I figured that 'slots' would go away - having slots AND percentages seems a little over the top.

No, it doesn't.

Being able to field 9+ Specials(or 15+ characters in the case of Skaven and Gobbos) because you happen to get low cost ones is what's over the top.

Goblin heroes are WS4, S4, T4, I3, and Ld7. For many armies, if you removed a wound and one point from any other stat (weapon skill, initiative, toughness, or strength) from them people would be going "Oh hey, it's a rank & file". In some army's cases (Chaos Warriors, Daemons, Dwarves), they're still inferior with only the wound lost (if even only then).

There's a reason that in the old O&G book you could take an extra big-boss for every 1000pts if they were all Goblins: You can pretty handily counter them with most army's unit champions and be on even footing.

Yeah.

R&F Warlock Engineers.

The sky is starting to fall...

Yeah, force org. caps will stay. No doubt about it. They wouldn't just invalidate that one page in everyone's armybook.

@Minsc

You probably dont' play much 40k but the changes weren't minor in any phase. Let alone how parts of the game (read units not phases) work. But back to fantasy.

Anyone who is crying about the no guessing artillery paused to consider that the toning down of armor save modifiers could apply to these as well? The no armor save portion of stonethrowers/bolt throwers/and cannons are generally found in the main rulebook. Meaning that it's probably changing as well.

Just another food for thought.

I'm at least looking forward to reading the new rulebook. I've not really played Fantasy since the mid 90's, so it's difficult for me to relay any real changes at the moment.

With the addition of real missions, I'll be curious if it some 40K influence further bleeds over: 40K- only Troops can hold objectives Fantasy- only Core choices? This seemingly minor rule tweak in 40K drastically changed how armies are constructed.

Minsc wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Manfred von Drakken wrote:Yeah, I figured that 'slots' would go away - having slots AND percentages seems a little over the top.

No, it doesn't.

Being able to field 9+ Specials(or 15+ characters in the case of Skaven and Gobbos) because you happen to get low cost ones is what's over the top.

Goblin heroes are WS4, S4, T4, I3, and Ld7. For many armies, if you removed a wound and one point from any other stat (weapon skill, initiative, toughness, or strength) from them people would be going "Oh hey, it's a rank & file". In some army's cases (Chaos Warriors, Daemons, Dwarves), they're still inferior with only the wound lost (if even only then).

A lvl 1 Warlock Engineer is 65 points. You can fit 7 of them into 2k. 33 of them if they don't take a level in magic(they're 15 points naked). Or give them Handguns and have 16 individual snipers running around.

Platuan4th wrote:

Minsc wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Manfred von Drakken wrote:Yeah, I figured that 'slots' would go away - having slots AND percentages seems a little over the top.

No, it doesn't.

Being able to field 9+ Specials(or 15+ characters in the case of Skaven and Gobbos) because you happen to get low cost ones is what's over the top.

Goblin heroes are WS4, S4, T4, I3, and Ld7. For many armies, if you removed a wound and one point from any other stat (weapon skill, initiative, toughness, or strength) from them people would be going "Oh hey, it's a rank & file". In some army's cases (Chaos Warriors, Daemons, Dwarves), they're still inferior with only the wound lost (if even only then).

A lvl 1 Warlock Engineer is 65 points. You can fit 7 of them into 2k. 33 of them if they don't take a level in magic(they're 15 points naked). Or give them Handguns and have 16 individual snipers running around.

"Oh god they everywhere take cover gurk..." final words of colonel von strumen

Platuan4th wrote:A lvl 1 Warlock Engineer is 65 points. You can fit 7 of them into 2k. 33 of them if they don't take a level in magic(they're 15 points naked). Or give them Handguns and have 16 individual snipers running around.

And what will the 33 naked Warlocks do? I can have 30+ Thunderers for that cost actually doing something.

7 lvl1 Warlocks (or 5 lvl1 with condenser) might be a problem. They would still be constrained by the total amount of PD you rolled for the turn since apparently wizards don't generate dice on their own anymore, meaning you could only fire off 3 or 4 of them.

His Master's Voice wrote:
7 lvl1 Warlocks (or 5 lvl1 with condenser) might be a problem. They would still be constrained by the total amount of PD you rolled for the turn since apparently wizards don't generate dice on their own anymore, meaning you could only fire off 3 or 4 of them.

Depends on which rumours are true. Some state that they still add dice (1 for lvls 1&2, 2 for 3&4).

Also, 33 naked WE are 33 individual models running around being generally annoying and doing things like blocking charge lanes and baiting Frenzy whilst Jezzails, globadiers, and other shooty elements lay into you.

I imagine the caps in the book will still exist but theyre simply going to add a new global cap.. GW doesnt like to have to tell everyone "ignore whatever is in the codex".. Generally army book trumps codex and FAQ trumps all.. Otherwise we're going to end up with some absurd scenario like the one listed above!

Well, if you want to throw away 500 points just to prove a point, be my guest. I'm still not convinced 33 warlocks running around doing nothing will have any impact on the game.

Well, it will increase the turn length as that's 33 more guys to move around, shoot or whatever.

If they remove the "no save" thing for stonethrowers, then that kills their effectiveness against a few armies... but for the most part is making little difference. Even if the "S5 is new starting point" thing is true and they only keep "Armor Piercing", they're still going to be causing an average of between 66%, 83%, and the full 100% against all but about three infantry units. It's one of the things that makes the direct hit cheesy, but it's not like the whole thing crumbles without it.

And sure 33 Warlocks running around will HMV: You'll now be facing a neutered Skaven list as it lacks a Bell, Furnace, Grey Seer, or pretty much any effective hero choice for either combat, buff, magic, or leadership purposes.

I could see getting rid of partials but keep the guessing otherwise artilary base armies will be ridiculously overpowered, which will lead to LM with as many terradons as possible, HE and WoC with calvary based armies. it'll make dwarves and empire just like tau.

I think having so many sorcerers would be very entertaining to watch.

Most of them would stand around doing nothing, as they wouldn't have any power dice. Occassionally someone down the line would blow up and take half his unit with him, including several warlocks (if they were in a unit).

It would be viable, but it wouldn't be very effective.

@Sarigar. Afaik it's any unit with a banner (presumably with a minimum number of models to have more than the enemy, if it is contested). Not just core units.

Another rumour that has been backed up by Avian:

Units need to have at least 2 complete ranks in order to negate enemy flank/rear.

I believe cavalry are going to 4 wide, and monstrous infantry are definitely going to 3.

His Master's Voice wrote:Well, if you want to throw away 500 points just to prove a point, be my guest. I'm still not convinced 33 warlocks running around doing nothing will have any impact on the game.

It will make Skaven even more annoying than they already are - and that's saying something!

Two full ranks for rank breaking?

Not cool, GW, not cool.

Karon wrote:Two full ranks for rank breaking?

Not cool, GW, not cool.

Hey, GW needs to sell models one way or another...

@Karon I see why you all would think that, I meant to say, for lack of a better term, more then likely instead of definite.

I dont like the 2 ranks to negate ranks

If the two ranks thing is true, then the 'hammer' part of warhammer will be true, at least as far as rules changes come. It appears that the game will be all infantry all the time. The point of Cav is to hit things in the flank and break them. Right now, only Empire Knights (Or Brets) are cheap enough to rank. Hopefully they don't make the rank breaking things so that Bret lances won't work.

This will make some ridden monsters also basically worthless. Not to mention that if they keep the rule about Fast Cav not being able to get ranks...They'll never get a flank.

I wonder how this will interact with the 'Stubborn if have more ranks' rumor...Will a non-rank-breaking unit in the flank be able to take away stubborn?

As for the no-guess thing, it doesn't really change the game. If you were good, you could do it pretty accurately anyways. What it does is remove all the arguments about overguessing.

skyth wrote:If the two ranks thing is true, then the 'hammer' part of warhammer will be true, at least as far as rules changes come. It appears that the game will be all infantry all the time. The point of Cav is to hit things in the flank and break them. Right now, only Empire Knights (Or Brets) are cheap enough to rank. Hopefully they don't make the rank breaking things so that Bret lances won't work.

Hey, Gobbos could break too. Not that it's much better, as it's either 8 models in one interpretation as a minimum or 12 models for the next (front + two full ranks).

skyth wrote:I wonder how this will interact with the 'Stubborn if have more ranks' rumor...Will a non-rank-breaking unit in the flank be able to take away stubborn?

I thought that rule was wider front when engaged from the front, not more ranks?

skyth wrote:As for the no-guess thing, it doesn't really change the game. If you were good, you could do it pretty accurately anyways. What it does is remove all the arguments about overguessing.

It also allows you to center a template dead on the center of a unit with 100% efficiency with about a 22% success rate.

Oh, and by the way: I checked the O&G book. There is no limit to dispel dice bonus from the Spirit Totem, only rank bonus. If "infinite rank bonus potential" comes to pass, well, can you dig 14 Dispel Dice from a Night Goblin unit with the BSB? Or, if you deploy right & large enough, potentially twenty?

The rumour for stubborn was only by having more ranks and only when charged in the front. So fast cav at least 8 models will be able to negate flanks and take away stubborn.

It seems that they want to reduce the amount of flanking by fast cav in general, as I know a lot of WoC players take 2x6 warhounds. So by joining them together they have a nice flanking unit for no extra cost, but only one unit unless they scavenge points elsewhere.

Grimstonefire wrote:The rumour for stubborn was only by having more ranks and only when charged in the front. So fast cav at least 8 models will be able to negate flanks and take away stubborn.

The rumor was 'only when charged in the front'. There was no requirement in the rumor about negating ranks to get the bonus Unless you are presenting a new rumor.

It seems that they want to reduce the amount of flanking by fast cav in general, as I know a lot of WoC players take 2x6 warhounds. So by joining them together they have a nice flanking unit for no extra cost, but only one unit unless they scavenge points elsewhere.

Which is a pity, as it takes away a good portion of how Cav is 'supposed' to be used. Btw, no WoC player worth thier salt charges hounds into a ranked up unit, even in the flank. The hounds will still lose and break and sometimes give enough CR from kills for the enemy to actually win the combat even if you have a ranked unit in the front. (Unless you want them to break the hounds...). The hounds are purely annoyance and redirecting/blocking units that will go after some soft targets (Warmachines, lone wizards, etc)

Btw Minsc, I was only talking about Cav originally, not fast Cav, as (especially with the Step up rule) fast Cav will take too many casaulties to make it worthwhile. That kinda rules out Goblins as an effective breaking force.

So basically, they want a game where there's no more strategy than two groups of block infantry walking at each other in a straight line and pounding away in a straight fight with buckets of dice?

No, thanks. I like strategy.

As opposed to lining up across from one another and shooting and magiking your opponent to death while uber powerful characters kill each other?

Doesn't sound any different to me.

If all you intend to do is walk toward your foe with blocks of infantry and not move those blocks of infantry so they are grabbing objectives (in the case of Core at least) you won't win very many games.

Fateweaver wrote:As opposed to lining up across from one another and shooting and magiking your opponent to death while uber powerful characters kill each other?

Doesn't sound any different to me.

If all you intend to do is walk toward your foe with blocks of infantry and not move those blocks of infantry so they are grabbing objectives (in the case of Core at least) you won't win very many games.

Oversimplification

You ignore all facts of flanking, cavalry, etc.

Yeah, I think that if this edition does bust, the people will push out a widely accepted 7.5 Edition, mixing 8th edition and 7th.

Karon wrote:Oversimplification

.

I find that comment hilarious coming from someone that has been making judgements based on partial rumours, to the point of concluding 8th sucks

Heres a tip... read the full ruleset... make some lists... play some games and then make judgement about it because at this point you and all of us dont know jack Shat about the 8th.

@Skyth

[*]If you are only engaged to the front and have more ranks than the opponent, you are Stubborn.

Imo the only way this could be read is that a flanking unit capable of denying rank bonus and (obviously) having equal or more ranks will take out stubborn as well.

Taking out the rank bonus with cavalry will be a lot more common than taking out stubborn.

Actually, the stubborn will be easier to take out. One model in the flank / rear cuts it out, but depending on the interpretation of the two-full-ranks thing eight-to-twelve will be needed to negate ranks.

Just from what I know this edition sounds like it could pull me INTO Fantasy.

Question I have to answer is what army I want to do.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:No, thanks. I like strategy.

The strategy of riding a heavy cav unit right up to my state troops and just auto-blowing them away and overrunning into my cannons?

Earn a flank charge, and you can blow away my block infantry just like you do now. use one of your own blocks to hold me there, then its even easier to blow me away with a flank charge.

My rank bonus wasn't helping me survive front charges from elite units before, this new stubborn rule might actually make infantry blocks.. gasp! useful!

NAVARRO wrote:

Karon wrote:Oversimplification

.

I find that comment hilarious coming from someone that has been making judgements based on partial rumours, to the point of concluding 8th sucks

Heres a tip... read the full ruleset... make some lists... play some games and then make judgement about it because at this point you and all of us dont know jack Shat about the 8th.

I've been making judgments off of RUMORS, yes, rumors.

I've just been saying when taking a rumor on its own, and having only that rumor, combined with some others, it does sound pretty terrible.

But that is based off of rumors, so that is the only thing that we can do.

If it really is "more ranks = stubborn" instead of "wider = stubborn", then I'm really not going to like this new edition (well, technically, I am). Why? My "21 Dispel Dice" Night Goblin Unit? Congrats, it's now also stubborn with a static CR of 23. It has 22 Ranks. You, likely, are going to have to fight through at least 18 (90 models) before it loses stubborn.

Don't get me wrong, with "wider front" you still need to kill a lot to get stubborn. But, in the very least, you're countering out the whole "I have fifty models five by ten I get stubborn and a static resolution of 11" problem by either forcing a static 11 w/0 stubborn or possibly a static of 7 or 8 with stubborn.

As for the "needing at least eight models in a cavalry unit (possibly 12) to get a flank is more tactical" - yeah, you need to plan more. But that's now getting into the absurd territory of planning how to get your blocky unit (possibly deeper than most infantry regiments fielded currently with a 150mm flank) past other factors to hit someone there.

Worse, if it is "rank bonus of two" and not "two ranks", that pretty much shafts fast cavalry. They lack saves, they often are only T3, and can't do any damage as is. With the fact that the enemy doesn't lose their rank bonus' either, it's essentially going to be "Enemy's static combat resolution + wounds v whatever wounds the fast cav can do". They won't even be effective for combination charges any more as they'll just be feeding wounds to the enemy instead of negating ranks.


EDIT: How to be a cheesy git in larger WHFB games in 8th Edition.

Step 1: Buy unit of Night Goblins 200 big, costs 600pts.
Step 2: Buy Orc Big Boss as BSB. Give Orc BSB Mork's Spirit Totem.
Step 3: Deploy Night Goblin unit five deep, 40 long.
Step 4: Deploy BSB in unit.
Step 5: Reform with a rotation - unit is now 40 deep, five long.
Step 6: Enjoy your +39 Dispel Dice.

And then watch as a Hochland Long Rifle kills the BSB...


Also, I'd bet that the O&G are on the short list to get a new army book so I wouldn't be surprised if that combo goes away pretty quickly.

Some decent points Minsc. Just remember though, stubborn does not mean unbreakable. What is the night goblin leadership? Is it higher than 7?

Are you borrowing the generals leadership? Where is he? Can his unit be attacked instead? Is HIS unit 50 strong as well?

I would imagine a 5 wide 22 rank night goblin unit will be quite terrible. Moving 4, marching 8 and charging 4 + d6. What will this unit do aside from being difficult to defeat from the front?

the depth of this unit is 17 inches? While the width is a mere 4"? How is it deployed legally on the table?

How many points is that unit of night goblins? Is it expensive enough for it to be 'ok' for it to win a combat? Especially if the victory would likely bring its massive flank in range of a ranked up block?


this line of thinking reminds me a lot of how freaked out people were gettin with the new cover rules for 40k. It was quickly apparent to people seeing the previe of the rules, that infantry squads would be able to provide cover to each other! And in some cases not giving cover to the enemy while doing so! The sky was certainly falling... and now that cover save rule has just become a complete non-issue.

Shep wrote:Some decent points Minsc. Just remember though, stubborn does not mean unbreakable. What is the night goblin leadership? Is it higher than 7?

Are you borrowing the generals leadership? Where is he? Can his unit be attacked instead? Is HIS unit 50 strong as well?

I would imagine a 5 wide 22 rank night goblin unit will be quite terrible. Moving 4, marching 8 and charging 4 + d6. What will this unit do aside from being difficult to defeat from the front?

the depth of this unit is 17 inches? While the width is a mere 4"? How is it deployed legally on the table?

How many points is that unit of night goblins? Is it expensive enough for it to be 'ok' for it to win a combat? Especially if the victory would likely bring its massive flank in range of a ranked up block?


this line of thinking reminds me a lot of how freaked out people were gettin with the new cover rules for 40k. It was quickly apparent to people seeing the previe of the rules, that infantry squads would be able to provide cover to each other! And in some cases not giving cover to the enemy while doing so! The sky was certainly falling... and now that cover save rule has just become a complete non-issue.

Its deployed long wise, and then he says he reforms it into deep wise.

Ozymandias wrote:And then watch as a Hochland Long Rifle kills the BSB...

You'll need at least two to get it done on Turn 1, otherwise you're pretty much unlikely to negate it barring a charge on the unit. Why?

__EEEEE
__EEEEE
__EEEEE
__EEEEE



==========
==========
O=========
==========

Ranks go something like the above, ='s are Gobbos, O = Orc, E = enemies. Mr. Engineer won't have LoS

Also, I'd bet that the O&G are on the short list to get a new army book so I wouldn't be surprised if that combo goes away pretty quickly.

Oh of course. I'd be surprised frankly if - out of all the new books - O&G didn't get a Beastmen treatment. Heck, it's starting to come to the point I wouldn't be surprised if it splits into "Army Book: Orcs" and "Army Book: Goblins", with "Goblinoid" as a generic replacement in the Orc book.

EDIT:

Shep wrote:Are you borrowing the generals leadership? Where is he? Can his unit be attacked instead? Is HIS unit 50 strong as well?

His unit isn't intended to be that large. Though it probably will be 50 models.

Shep wrote:I would imagine a 5 wide 22 rank night goblin unit will be quite terrible. Moving 4, marching 8 and charging 4 + d6. What will this unit do aside from being difficult to defeat from the front?

It isn't there to move. It's there to statically provide some 30+ Dispel Dice a turn.

Shep wrote:the depth of this unit is 17 inches? While the width is a mere 4"? How is it deployed legally on the table?

Re-read what either I or Karon wrote. It isn't being deployed at the front of my army, but the very back essentially as:
_ _ _ _ _ _
======
======

Long-ways. Whenever you "rotate" a unit, you're actually having the troops turn - not the regiment wheel. Thus, it's not the end moving upward from one corner to another: It's the command shifting from about the middle _ on the first line to the first ='s position on the second.

Shep wrote:How many points is that unit of night goblins? Is it expensive enough for it to be 'ok' for it to win a combat? Especially if the victory would likely bring its massive flank in range of a ranked up block?

Again, they aren't meant to get into combat. Ever. They're meant to be some 600pt (for the +39 Dispel Dice, only 450 for +29 Dispel Dice and 300 for +19) buffer for another 150pt character for a sum total of "Your magic phase is done".

Furthermore, pretty much anyone already knows that - barring the Night Goblin unit being crammed full of characters - that they aren't going to win combat no matter how big they are. It's not WH40K: You can't do death by 1000 cuts due to ever model that you can start the turn within 14" of an enemy getting full attacks. You're, most likely in a 40+ Night Goblin unit - only going to get about 20 at best fighting (and that if charged whilst using spears and the enemy had an exceptionally large front and then wiffed with all their attacks). That's one of the problems with WHFB, and it can't be countered by saying "They get to attack more" as then the enemy benefits from it as well. Fighting in a third rank with hordes sounds great at first, until you realize that a 5-wide 20mm unit smart enough not to increase their frontage is maybe being hit by 21 models at best, 18 if the attackers are 25mm. Meaning that out of your 30+ models, somewhere around a third of them aren't attacking, and all the extra ranks behind those aren't attacking either, and with the new stubborn rule they lose out anyways as the enemy - by not going wide - is now taking no penalties to their break check.

Karon wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

Karon wrote:Oversimplification

.

I find that comment hilarious coming from someone that has been making judgements based on partial rumours, to the point of concluding 8th sucks

Heres a tip... read the full ruleset... make some lists... play some games and then make judgement about it because at this point you and all of us dont know jack Shat about the 8th.

I've been making judgments off of RUMORS, yes, rumors.

I've just been saying when taking a rumor on its own, and having only that rumor, combined with some others, it does sound pretty terrible.

But that is based off of rumors, so that is the only thing that we can do.

Well the OP first post is a great thing to have and debate, YET how can you pass a judgement on a 500plus page rulebook just based in less than one page of RUMORS?! If thats not "Oversimplification" to the extreme I dont know what is. That is what I find funny.
No its not the only thing we can do... we can also all debate things and wait and try out the 8th before making judgemental remarks all stressed out that the sky is falling. Relax man.


Ozymandias have you heard any word on O&G book?

The latest rumours, that will be added to the sticky eventually. I think the 2 ranks thing has already been discussed.

Flank/ Rear charges & Combat Resolution
• Units need to have at least 2 complete ranks in order to negate enemy flank/rear.

Fear and Terror
• When you charge a Fear or Terror causer you take the Fear/Terror test not before you charge, but at the start of the combat phase. - Avian

If you fail the Fear/Terror test you are reduced to WS1 & A1. Presumably mounts are reduced to WS1 & A1 as well.

Terror comes with a chance to run away.

Skirmishers
Skirmishers are now a fixed formation, with a 1 inch gap between each and every model. -Avian and Kah-thurak

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

Still rank up in combat.

Grimstonefire wrote:Skirmishers
Skirmishers are now a fixed formation, with a 1 inch gap between each and every model. -Avian and Kah-thurak

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

Still rank up in combat.

Lot of people won't like that!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Lot of people won't like that!

add it to the list of all of the things theyre not going to like. theres always complaining no matter what.
when i first saw this particular nugget i couldnt quite see why... it just seems annoying but then i came to the conclusion that i bet youll see a new skirmisher movement tray in the not to far future

NAVARRO wrote:
Ozymandias have you heard any word on O&G book?

Nothing other than historical precedent. It's always (well, last few editions anyway) been one of the first 3 books released after a new edition. And with the current state of the book's power level I wouldn't be surprised if we see it before Tomb Kings, Brettonia, OK, etc.

Skirmishers are fixed formation? Really? Ouch. Hate to lose the convenience of just moving in terrain willy nilly.

Get ready for the GW skirmisher movement tray.

Edit: Ninja'd on the movement tray, haha

That skirmisher thing is just irritating because it will slow down movement.. Sorry thats .5 an inch redo it.. Oh thats .75 an inch.. hey thats over an inch.. Please check every single model every single time you move?? Seriously come on

If that strange formation thing all that's changing about skirmishers then i'm not to disappointed. Their freedom of movement was a huge advantage, and it's fair for it to be neutered somewhat.

I'm actually really excited to play 8th ed with my Wood elves. Their balance has been thrown all over the place. Glade guard, Eternal guard and Treekin are receiving big boosts, all the skirmishers are slightly neutered, fear will boost dryads hitting power, who knows what happening to the big monsters like dragons and treemen. i honestly don't know how my army will look yet. Very exciting!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kirasu wrote:That skirmisher thing is just irritating because it will slow down movement.. Sorry thats .5 an inch redo it.. Oh thats .75 an inch.. hey thats over an inch.. Please check every single model every single time you move?? Seriously come on

Sucks to have opponents like yours.

Grimstonefire wrote:If you fail the Fear/Terror test you are reduced to WS1 & A1. Presumably mounts are reduced to WS1 & A1 as well.

Wait, so if my Night Goblins fail a Fear test against Skeletons their only penalty is the enemy gets +1 to hit, and if they fail against Zombies they're -1?

Goblins are unbothered by fear, practically

Grimstonefire wrote:Skirmishers
Skirmishers are now a fixed formation, with a 1 inch gap between each and every model. -Avian and Kah-thurak

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

Still rank up in combat.

At first, I thought "that's not too bad - it saves time moving". And it's true... if all you're using Skirmishers for is running around as a loose block. But you don't. This is going to play hell with Skirmisher LoS, standard moving practices (March 12" to get between / behind enemy units), and so on. Skirmishers are essentially becoming blocks less bothered by terrain and templates, instead of a maneuverable force that can dance between small gaps in an enemy's lines or harass a unit along its flanks. Skink Skirmishers are really not going to like this change, nor Gutter Runners. Or Squig Hoppers, now that I think about it. Hm, to be honest, Dryads might be one of the least bothered by this.

Skirmishers are pretty much useless with this change.

Minsc wrote:

Grimstonefire wrote:If you fail the Fear/Terror test you are reduced to WS1 & A1. Presumably mounts are reduced to WS1 & A1 as well.

Wait, so if my Night Goblins fail a Fear test against Skeletons their only penalty is the enemy gets +1 to hit, and if they fail against Zombies they're -1?

Goblins are unbothered by fear, practically

Yeah the fact that things with the worst leadership typically have the worst other stats means fear is going to be pretty useless and everything that has the rule is now overcosted.

Avian is hinting they may still have 360 LoS.

Kirasu wrote:That skirmisher thing is just irritating because it will slow down movement.. Sorry thats .5 an inch redo it.. Oh thats .75 an inch.. hey thats over an inch.. Please check every single model every single time you move?? Seriously come on

Wouldn't it be easy enough to make some sort of special skirmisher tray, though?

That change does sound like it sucks, though. I don't really understand WFB rules but it looked like it was cool to have a disparate, 40k-style unit charge a thick block of troops.

I think this clearly reinforces the 'no partials' rumour, as otherwise people could have tried some unusual tricks to get around it. Standardising all skirmishers like this is quite logical imo.

Ixquic wrote:Skirmishers are pretty much useless with this change.

Correction: Units of skirmishers greater than 5 are pretty much useless. Spam them in small units now, as even having to keep formation you can probably sorta work a formation similar to normal with such low numbers.

Ostrakon wrote:Wouldn't it be easy enough to make some sort of special skirmisher tray, though?

Depends on if it has a set distance the models need to keep, or if it's related to base size. 1" gaps between 20mm models - for instance - could be a bit of a pain to work out.

Minsc wrote:

Ixquic wrote:Skirmishers are pretty much useless with this change.

Correction: Units of skirmishers greater than 5 are pretty much useless. Spam them in small units now, as even having to keep formation you can probably sorta work a formation similar to normal with such low numbers.

Ostrakon wrote:Wouldn't it be easy enough to make some sort of special skirmisher tray, though?

Depends on if it has a set distance the models need to keep, or if it's related to base size. 1" gaps between 20mm models - for instance - could be a bit of a pain to work out.

Definitely a pain, yes, but still possible as long as you know the parameters.

I'd really be surprised if its not simply a max of 1" away.

I wonder if this was an attempt to get rid of some of those crazy conga line situations?

Not do derail the thread, but does anyone know if there will be any model's released with the new book besides the starter set?

As to the rumors I'll hold judgement after I see the new book.

Minsc wrote:

Ixquic wrote:Skirmishers are pretty much useless with this change.

Correction: Units of skirmishers greater than 5 are pretty much useless. Spam them in small units now, as even having to keep formation you can probably sorta work a formation similar to normal with such low numbers.

This is true but what skirmishers can you take units that small of? Most small skirmishing units are in the special and rare slots and thus you can only get three if the current anti-spamming rumor is correct.

Sounds like a way to make people not buy skink skirmishers

More like a way for people who bought Skinks to now have to buy Saurus.

Clever, GW!

Eh its alright the battle force comes with everything you need.. I have a good amount of both. Lizardmen is one of the few armies that you dont need metal or many individual boxsets for

It appears to be another 'if it's not a ranked infantry unit, we're going to nerf it to hell.' move.

Ozymandias wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Ozymandias have you heard any word on O&G book?

Nothing other than historical precedent. It's always (well, last few editions anyway) been one of the first 3 books released after a new edition. And with the current state of the book's power level I wouldn't be surprised if we see it before Tomb Kings, Brettonia, OK, etc.

GW already announced O&G are the next book - I got the email weeks ago.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Ozymandias have you heard any word on O&G book?

Nothing other than historical precedent. It's always (well, last few editions anyway) been one of the first 3 books released after a new edition. And with the current state of the book's power level I wouldn't be surprised if we see it before Tomb Kings, Brettonia, OK, etc.

GW already announced O&G are the next book - I got the email weeks ago.

Mind copy and pasting this? Cause there was an email about the new figures... but I just checked my gw emails from the past 2 months... NOTHING on a new book...

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Ozymandias have you heard any word on O&G book?

Nothing other than historical precedent. It's always (well, last few editions anyway) been one of the first 3 books released after a new edition. And with the current state of the book's power level I wouldn't be surprised if we see it before Tomb Kings, Brettonia, OK, etc.

GW already announced O&G are the next book - I got the email weeks ago.

Oh? so in the summer?

Grimstonefire wrote:
Fear and Terror
• When you charge a Fear or Terror causer you take the Fear/Terror test not before you charge, but at the start of the combat phase. - Avian

If you fail the Fear/Terror test you are reduced to WS1 & A1. Presumably mounts are reduced to WS1 & A1 as well.

Terror comes with a chance to run away.

"Ok lads, we're going to attack that group of re-animated rotting corpses."
"Right you are, boss. Chaaaaarge!"
"Whoa! These guys are pretty freaky up close. My reaction is to tentatively poke at them with my sword."

Sigh!

Manfred von Drakken wrote:GW already announced O&G are the next book - I got the email weeks ago.

Did you actually read it?

Models only (boar boys and river trolls). No new book this year, though a fair-average chance for late next year (imo).

People saying they will get one early 2011, but there's still OK, TK, Brets and WE. All of which are having fairly substantial changes as a result of 8th ed so are in much more need of an update first.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Ozymandias have you heard any word on O&G book?

Nothing other than historical precedent. It's always (well, last few editions anyway) been one of the first 3 books released after a new edition. And with the current state of the book's power level I wouldn't be surprised if we see it before Tomb Kings, Brettonia, OK, etc.

GW already announced O&G are the next book - I got the email weeks ago.

Did you bother to read it?

It said new figures - river trolls and boar boyz. Nothing else.

Problem with horde people tend to miss: Armies that can't take it reliably but do like unlimited ranks and are already good enough with their normal front can easily counter it - five-wide front / three ride Ogres. If 25mm bases, you miss out on 9 attacking models (if on 20mm bases) or 6 if on 20mm. If 20mm you miss out on either 12 attacking models (25mm) or 9 attacking models (20mm). 40mm is the same for 25mm (12), with 25mm's for 20mm units (6)


That... is not a good thing. Missing from half to nearly a whole rank for 20mm's, to pretty much or over a full rank with 25mm. While it will be effective for stuff like Dark Elves and High Elves, this is bad for 25mm armies that would require such to make their troops effective (Orcs, Gors, some Marauders).

Worse, since it's "extra ranks = stubborn" and not "extra frontage", we're looking at what's essentially 3-9 (worst-to-best case scenario) for one unit, whereas the defenders get more ranks and stubborn.

Assuming equal size for instance, same models, same unit size, assuming a 40-man unit - enough to get 3 Ranks for the Horde, seven for the defenders. Defenders start the combat forcing the attackers to make an extra four wounds just to tie, and even if such is done any of such point's influence on combat resolution is nil unless they can kill some 21+ models while suffering less than 6 in turn.

Horde is going to be effective for stuff like Black Guard and other elite 20mm infantry, but when it comes to generic 20mm, skilled 25mm, or - worse of all - generic 25mm, it's pretty much worthless when you could just take the extra ranks and become an anvil.

Karon wrote:

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Ozymandias have you heard any word on O&G book?

Nothing other than historical precedent. It's always (well, last few editions anyway) been one of the first 3 books released after a new edition. And with the current state of the book's power level I wouldn't be surprised if we see it before Tomb Kings, Brettonia, OK, etc.

GW already announced O&G are the next book - I got the email weeks ago.

Did you bother to read it?

It said new figures - river trolls and boar boyz. Nothing else.

Must've misread it. My bad.

Minsc wrote:Problem with horde people tend to miss: Armies that can't take it reliably but do like unlimited ranks and are already good enough with their normal front can easily counter it - five-wide front / three ride Ogres. If 25mm bases, you miss out on 9 attacking models (if on 20mm bases) or 6 if on 20mm. If 20mm you miss out on either 12 attacking models (25mm) or 9 attacking models (20mm). 40mm is the same for 25mm (12), with 25mm's for 20mm units (6)


That... is not a good thing. Missing from half to nearly a whole rank for 20mm's, to pretty much or over a full rank with 25mm. While it will be effective for stuff like Dark Elves and High Elves, this is bad for 25mm armies that would require such to make their troops effective (Orcs, Gors, some Marauders).

Worse, since it's "extra ranks = stubborn" and not "extra frontage", we're looking at what's essentially 3-9 (worst-to-best case scenario) for one unit, whereas the defenders get more ranks and stubborn.

Assuming equal size for instance, same models, same unit size, assuming a 40-man unit - enough to get 3 Ranks for the Horde, seven for the defenders. Defenders start the combat forcing the attackers to make an extra four wounds just to tie, and even if such is done any of such point's influence on combat resolution is nil unless they can kill some 21+ models while suffering less than 6 in turn.

Horde is going to be effective for stuff like Black Guard and other elite 20mm infantry, but when it comes to generic 20mm, skilled 25mm, or - worse of all - generic 25mm, it's pretty much worthless when you could just take the extra ranks and become an anvil.

So wait, is WFB the kind of game where quality matters over quantity, or is it more like 40k where you're liable to lose expensive models with relative ease? As someone who plays now, do you think that the new rules (like one save only bonus attacking ranks, etc) will skew it toward horde armies like Skaven?

I ask because I was going to start a Skaven army when the starter comes out.

Quality matters over quantity. You charge a unit of 40 Empire Swordsmen after 10 Chaos Warriors next edition, Swordsmen 5 x 8, the static resolution is 9-2 or 10-1 depending on who charged who. Not too bad, until the Chaos Warriors attack and get some 6-9-12 wounds (HW&S / two hand-weapon OR MoK / MoK & two hand-weapon, respectively) before the Swordsmen strike. Or the Swordsmen just got their asses handed to them, with anywhere between only being ahead by 3 points now (vanilla Chaos Warriors) to being beaten - on their own charge - by some 3 points.

This is not to say that quality cannot be overcome with quantity - it's much more likely now with the infinite ranks rumor - but as it stands right now with Skaven your best bet for combat victory is either combination charges, static resolution, or having characters do the wounding for you. It isn't like 40k, wherein if you buy a 30 man unit to charge the eight man tactical squad and you charge you can possibly get all them to attack. It's more like having the thirty man unit charge and getting seven of them to attack - in new initiative rules after the enemy has already struck themselves.

I've been wondering how they will establish who holds an objective?


Something I was thinking, the rumour is that only units with banners can take objectives. I wonder if an uncontested objective is 'held' by a unit without a banner whether they would get it? Needs to have at least minimum unit size to hold

Then they could say that if you have a contested objective, if one unit has a benner they can claim it outright.

But if both have banner, or both do not..? Ideas?

The unit with the most models gets the objective? Yes, 21 goblins would beat 20 CW this way, but hey, it does encourage bigger blocks of infantry.

Just to let you guys know, at some point in the next day or two I am going to be doing a huge update to the first post. Half of it will be green...

I'm having to run the changes by some people, as a lot of them are quite controversial and I'd rather try and get them close first time around.

Something you may find interesting, I have been told that units fighting in 2 ranks may not always be the same regardless of which side they are attacked on.

I didn't really understand the way it was described, so I need further clarification.

Just a heads up that the blackshirt at my GW said that "Fighting until someone breaks" was not only not discredited, but said that they saw it is the Rulebook.

If true, well, gak.

I'll say that as an avid Warhammer player, having played in multiple GT events and other tourney circuits with the most competitive armies around, I for one am absolutely psyched about this new edition of Warhammer!

Warhammer Fantasy really needs this. Around here the current edition is almost completely house ruled because otherwise it would be unplayable competitively. The scene is stagnant, the same power builds dominate and players have to artificially generate hurdles for the usual suspects so that people with other armies would have a snowball's chance in hell to even avoid getting massacred. It's obvious that the new edition will change everything. There won't be a single competive army that doesn't have to replace 80% or more of its models with new ones, and looks like the balance of power will shift from Daemons towards other armies. It's not that anything in the rumours necessarily indicates that DoC or VC or DE are bad, but it makes them a lot more tolerable and other armies a lot stronger. Like I said, I'm anticipating this release more than any GW release in a long time, and will be building a core-heavy Dark Elf army once the new edition is out.

Minsc wrote:Just a heads up that the blackshirt at my GW said that "Fighting until someone breaks" was not only not discredited, but said that they saw it is the Rulebook.

If true, well, gak.

We are flakked.

"Fighting until someone breaks"

What does that mean, exactly. The combat will constantly be gone over each turn until nobody is in combat any more? As in, we run through initiative and then do it again if nobody breaks?

Or are there ways to choose to break from combat in WFB that would now be eliminated?

Ostrakon wrote:"Fighting until someone breaks"

What does that mean, exactly. The combat will constantly be gone over each turn until nobody is in combat any more? As in, we run through initiative and then do it again if nobody breaks?

Or are there ways to choose to break from combat in WFB that would now be eliminated?

As in ohnoes!! You know, right? Ohnoes!! Yeah, they have no damn clue.

some redshirt at my flgs told me today that you just roll 1d6 and add the number of ranks you have to see who wins.
he also said there will be an expansion with a giant 1d6 in a box with an updated rulebook. both players roll the die and whoever rolls the highest wins. the cool part is they have a specific die for every army and you have to assemble and paint the die yourself but he said he hears the blue painted dice are overpowered.

Ostrakon wrote:"Fighting until someone breaks"

What does that mean, exactly. The combat will constantly be gone over each turn until nobody is in combat any more? As in, we run through initiative and then do it again if nobody breaks?

Or are there ways to choose to break from combat in WFB that would now be eliminated?

As in "When it comes to the combat phase, [1]roll your attacks as normal. If the unit(s) that lose isn't / aren't wiped out, [2]roll leadership as normal. If they do not break, go back to [1] and repeat [1] and [2]. Keep doing this until either one unit is dead, or one unit is broken and fleeing. Then move onto the next combat."

This is bad, because flanking can be a big thing in WHFB at times as well as other factors such as bogging down an enemy unit (can you imagine how much fun it'll be to have something like, say, Ld.10 stubborn Iron Breakers v Ld. 9 Stubborn Chaos Warriors w/ HW&S in hand to hand? Rolling that out over and over and over again?).

Minsc wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:"Fighting until someone breaks"

What does that mean, exactly. The combat will constantly be gone over each turn until nobody is in combat any more? As in, we run through initiative and then do it again if nobody breaks?

Or are there ways to choose to break from combat in WFB that would now be eliminated?

As in "When it comes to the combat phase, [1]roll your attacks as normal. If the unit(s) that lose isn't / aren't wiped out, [2]roll leadership as normal. If they do not break, go back to [1] and repeat [1] and [2]. Keep doing this until either one unit is dead, or one unit is broken and fleeing. Then move onto the next combat."

This is bad, because flanking can be a big thing in WHFB at times as well as other factors such as bogging down an enemy unit (can you imagine how much fun it'll be to have something like, say, Ld.10 stubborn Iron Breakers v Ld. 9 Stubborn Chaos Warriors w/ HW&S in hand to hand? Rolling that out over and over and over again?).

That certainly sounds... odd. A system like that also sounds like it could really result in hordes having a huge advantage, thanks to 1 save/model and sheer number of attacks

Ostrakon wrote:

Minsc wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:"Fighting until someone breaks"

What does that mean, exactly. The combat will constantly be gone over each turn until nobody is in combat any more? As in, we run through initiative and then do it again if nobody breaks?

Or are there ways to choose to break from combat in WFB that would now be eliminated?

As in "When it comes to the combat phase, [1]roll your attacks as normal. If the unit(s) that lose isn't / aren't wiped out, [2]roll leadership as normal. If they do not break, go back to [1] and repeat [1] and [2]. Keep doing this until either one unit is dead, or one unit is broken and fleeing. Then move onto the next combat."

This is bad, because flanking can be a big thing in WHFB at times as well as other factors such as bogging down an enemy unit (can you imagine how much fun it'll be to have something like, say, Ld.10 stubborn Iron Breakers v Ld. 9 Stubborn Chaos Warriors w/ HW&S in hand to hand? Rolling that out over and over and over again?).

That certainly sounds... odd. A system like that also sounds like it could really result in hordes having a huge advantage, thanks to 1 save/model and sheer number of attacks

Stubborn results in no leadership penalties. Several of the armies that have the best armor saves also have the best leadership, resulting in stuff such as units of Hammerers wherein they're Leadership 10 Stubborn (or, worse of all, within BSB range too which means re-rolling failed Break tests). Meaning some units are going to have to pretty much be eradicated completely, which - when combined with good saves - means a lot of wiffle-bat whacking.

Don't get me wrong, it won't happen all the time. It's just that it has the potential to get extremely long and tedious, and I pity the poor combat engagement of "Block of Chaos Warriors of Nurgle" against "Block of Dwarven Ironbreakers with Lord and / or BSB within 12"". Heck, if true then any unit featuring Gorbad has the potential to be pure hell (imagine 60 Goblins made Ld10 with re-rolls to their break checks and very likely to get the Stubborn bonus). That's just one of the more noticeable flaws, as it could make some of even the simplest (sans-character) combats result in a ten-plus minute engagement.

Blackshirts know nothing! He reads the boards and is screwing with you cause it'll make him laugh.

Fighting forever is pretty silly.. That would mean movement would mean almost nothing since flanking a unit already in combat would prove totally impossible unless you multiple charge the SAME unengaged unit from each direction... which usually means youre already doing very well regardless

Cant say I buy that

That can't be true.

It just can't

If it is, that literally ruins WHFB.

If it is (I am 99% sure it isn't), I'm going to have to convince the 40k players to let me use my beastmen on square bases as ork boyz.

A fairly major update. I've tried to get all the new things in green, though I may have missed a couple.

Grimstonefire wrote:[*]Lore of Fire: If the enemy suffered a from a fire lore spell earlier this magic phase, the caster is granted a Bonus of +3 when casting a fire spell upon the same target.

REALLY?! I can see every HE army bringing a Dragon Mage with Gem of Sunfire if true(because they really need a +5 to cast).

Also, if the Allies rules are true and they only apply to multiplayer games, I wouldn't be surprised if that means Legendary Battles rules are in the back of the book.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Must've misread it. My bad.

may bed bugs bug you all night

Grimstonefire wrote:A fairly major update. I've tried to get all the new things in green, though I may have missed a couple.

Big update indeed, thank you for that!
I was wondering something about hordes imagine 30 nightgobbos archers, the normal rule for shooters would be 20 shots but if they are 10 wide they would fire 30 shots?

I hope I'm missing something but simple double 6s lead to a chart where the results are that bad? Why would you ever cast magic when doubles of 1 number aren't that rare?

@NAVARRO
The ranks for shooting are not clear.

The horde rule does not apply evenly to all types of attack I believe.

How it was described to me before is that if the unit with bows is 10 wide, it may have +5 shots for each rank after the second.

Which seems a very strange way to work it out... So I have not added it to the sticky (yet)

Okay, I'm totally confused on the CR issue. There IS a cap on Rank Bonus? Or no?

@Grimstonefire:
1.) Vampires are missing in allies lit. My guess: Destruction. Tomb Kings really neutral?
2.) Several typos with html, please check.
3.) You should really change the second colour from black (called orange in the text) to something else.

Any news on how to fill 500+ pages? Can't be all missions. Does it include rules updates for each army (like HE ignore percentages etc.)

Kroothawk wrote:
Any news on how to fill 500+ pages? Can't be all missions. Does it include rules updates for each army (like HE ignore percentages etc.)

It has to have some etra or something to fix all the issues that will pop up with these possible changes.

Kroothawk wrote:
Any news on how to fill 500+ pages? Can't be all missions. Does it include rules updates for each army (like HE ignore percentages etc.)

advertisements for 40K

Grimstonefire wrote:@NAVARRO
The ranks for shooting are not clear.

The horde rule does not apply evenly to all types of attack I believe.

How it was described to me before is that if the unit with bows is 10 wide, it may have +5 shots for each rank after the second.

Which seems a very strange way to work it out... So I have not added it to the sticky (yet)

Ok thanks again for the heads up.
Very interesting a 50 goblins unit would shoot 20+5+5+5 arrows.

Kroothawk wrote:Tomb Kings really neutral?

Yes, read their fluff. Tomb Kings are very much, "I'm trying to sleep, stop breaking into my tomb and stealing my stuff." Settra aside, Tomb Kings have no designs on world domination. They are really just waiting for the liche priests to figure out how to give them everlasting life without the crusty skin condition.

Anyway, as for Grimstones latest updates...

This really does look like a reboot with everything changing apart from the basic to hit and to wound tables. I guess with ASF cancelling out ASL, Swordmasters aren't that rubbish, but I can't think of any reason you would field Greatswords. With only 6 attacks (with champion) striking last, they are never going to be able to hit anything. Or does "Stepping Up" come into play here? Gah, so confused!

If these rumours are true, the magic phase is now madness (in a good way... sort of... I guess). I don't really get the bonuses for successfully casting a spell. Ok, I get the Lore of Fire one, but the rest don't really make sense.

Well fighting in two ranks is different than removing models from the back.. So I imagine great weapons can STILL attack as long as their entire unit wasnt killed but they dont get extra ranks..

imo it makes greatswords better since they're pretty horrible right now except on the charge.. Atleast they'll be able to actually make attacks now!

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.


Mother of god, GW....

Oh, and I noticed that we roll 2d6 for charge distance now for 1-6 M value, I like that ^.^

Karon wrote:Oh, and I noticed that we roll 2d6 for charge distance now for 1-6 M value, I like that ^.^

do we know if that id added to regular movement or instead of.
personally i dont care for it. it seems that it will make charging completely unreliable if the only distance you can count on is your base move.

@Flashman
As it stands on the rumours, greatswords can fight in 1 rank with great weapons, but as casualties are taken from the back they will always fight with a complete front rank, until the unit is too small.

I don't know if the 2nd rank models will be able to attack with a hand weapon in addition to this. My guess is yes.

Even the 'to wound' table has changed (supposedly), with all the N's being 6.

Allies I don't quite mind - it's allowing stuff like Empire to use Kislev again, Beastmen & Warrior of Chaos joint operations, and so on. The implications of a few rules do bother me (Dangerous Terrain), but overall I can't complain about it provided people are responsible and not cheesy gits (Ex: High Elves with Stone Thrower spamming).

Can't complain about more duplicate forces in higher point levels - oh no, my enemy can try to fit in six units of Chaos Chosen in a 3K point game! Emperor help me if they have to field six of the units with an average of none of them above 250pts in the 50% rumor, and 125pts in the 25% rumor!

Old movement complaints have been given.

Charge of 2D6 is slightly better, but now I fear for stuff like Skaven Night Runners charging 18" or a unit of Chaos Warriors 16". You're giving Infantry the (chance of) movement like cavalry. You're reducing the risk of a unit 7" away from your M4 unit being a failed charge, but increasing the odds of a charge that by modern rules would be a turn's march then a max-range charge away.

Flier movement to 10 I guess is to implement the LotR style "Halved movement when close to enemies" schtick. I have a few complaints, but before I voice them I have two things to ask:
1) Ground or fly movement used for charge?
2) Infantry 2D6 or Cavalry 3D6 pick 2 best?

Reforming is a bit harsher it appears, but also arguably less so. Without a musician, it's harsher as you could do something like modify frontage / ranks by up to 5 while only halving your movement - without musician here going from 5x6 to 6x5 looks like it'd cost you everything. However, in contrast, with a musician it looks like no move penalty - whereas a 5x6 to 6x5 would be half movement gone this edition, next it could be none lost.

Still think Skirmishers on a base is a crappy idea.

Power / Dispel Dice looks like crap, but then I play an army that can generate a lot of Dispel Dice on its own (+4 with one character). It looks like it'll lower the degree of separation between power dice and dispel dice (especially the "no more than 12 PD" schtick). The closeness of such and bonuses from levels mean I predict a dramatic rise in usage of bonus-to-casting and bonus-to-dispel equipment, since the disparity will have to be reached via bonuses instead of dice now.

Loss of miscast is a shame for me, but then I lament the loss of Assault Cannon jamming so it may just be me.

Bound spells just look odd now. For instance: What the hell happens with Tomb Kings now? Wait... what does happen to Tomb Kings now? Are we going to see casting values to their incantations next edition? Worse, does this mean Tomb Kings can miscast / irresistible now?

I wonder - and sorta hope - that Scaly Skin is ignored for stuff like Lore of Metal. I know it gives a bit of an edge, but fluff-wise it does make sense: Are you really going to turn a lizardman's skin into a searing substance? How much iron do they have in their diet?

True line of sight is going to play hell with several things, for instance Scouts are really going to be changed next edition ($2 says it's like WH40K infiltrate, another $2 Ambush from WotR, last $2 says it's like Outflank from 40K). If it's none of these, it would surprise me. Scount has to be changed, as right now the only thing it lets you do is put them in your deployment zone last (One of the requirements of Scout being that no enemy can see you, and "true line of sight" will make that a bitch).

+3 to Ranks, alone, insures that my Goblins stay worthless into next edition

Well, Wyverns are even more worthless next to Dragons now. Whereas a Dragon is something like 6+2D6 attacks in combat, a Wyvern is... 3! Hydras are going to become pure evil now, hatred and their breath attack in HtH.

Joy, Special Rules is becoming 40K's universal rules.

Glad to see ASF doesn't over-rule everything any more. Some people will complain, I'm glad to see that a guy charging through obstacles against a dude with pikes while using a Great Weapon is no longer going first.

Frenzy has been toned down, it appears. Bets on if this means it's impossible to lose Frenzy now?

Stone Trolls are worthless against anything but Lore of Fire now. Oh look, I can take a 5+ ward... or just keep my 4+ Regen. Glad to see WHFB is going to 40K route of "Something a problem? Give more cover / invuln saves."

Several types of regeneration has potential, but we'll have to wait and see who gets the most cheese for the rule.

No change to armor save modifiers is good for me (I mostly play light infantry armies), but bad for other players (Chaos Warriors and Dwarves could really enjoy that ruling). It's going to make the rumored guess weapon stuff even cheesier, however (21 Auto-Hits at S4 with no save!).

Minsc wrote:Allies I don't quite mind - it's allowing stuff like Empire to use Kislev again, Beastmen & Warrior of Chaos joint operations, and so on. The implications of a few rules do bother me (Dangerous Terrain), but overall I can't complain about it provided people are responsible and not cheesy gits (Ex: High Elves with Stone Thrower spamming).

You might want to re-read what he posted.

[*]The allies rules are intended to be used by more than 1 person. You are not supposed to use more than one armybook in your army.

Meaning it's limiting who can play with who in multiplayer games. There is still nothing allowing a HE player(using your example) to buy Stone Thrower units from another book in a regular 1 on 1 game.

here ya go minsc...

That actually sums up GW rules very well. Very appealing, a bit over priced, with a faint odour about them and more holes than you can count.

Mhm.

I, actually, ADORE the ally rules.

I hate a lot of these rules, no, I LOATHE a lot of these rules, but I love a lot of the others.

We can't know until we have it in front of our faces, and our eyes reading.

And personally, I think this is going to be worth buying the hardcover rulebook for. This edition is probably going to be the most massive set of changes any genre of warhammer has seen.

fantasy has needed real line of sight for awhile now.. There is no reason a unit of skinks should block LOS to a unit of cold one riders considering one is twice as tall.. Negative modifiers to hit makes more sense

It wont be anything like 40k true line of sight because the shooting elements in WFB are no where near as mobile as 40k to line up specific shots

Karon wrote:
And personally, I think this is going to be worth buying the hardcover rulebook for. This edition is probably going to be the most massive set of changes any genre of warhammer has seen.

Here's hoping for Siege and Skirmish rules in the hardcover, as well. I wish they'd tell us a price and what's in what edition already!

usernamesareannoying wrote:here ya go minsc...

Aw, thanks. Now I'll have something to feed to my Clan Eshin Nightrunners.

nom nom nom...

I just hope GW knows what they are doing here. This could either go really, really bad, because of one or two rules, or really really good.

Heh, so many changes. which means i need to look at my armies AGAIN and see wtf is going to be needed for them.

I think it would be unlikely for them to change the to hit and to wound tables.

They are the only thing that makes warhammer, warhammer (also 40k, which is why it is warhammer 40k)

Over the years everything else has changed in the engine, except for player based turns.


ALSO:
I'm hoping that for charging the mvt is roll the number of d6 and pick the highest, so cav are more likely to consistently roll hig, whereas infantry will be slower.
A unit of seekers charging up to 28 inches is ridiculous, but say 10 (regular mvt) + (dice rolls of 2, 4, 6) to give 16 is much more sensible.
Then add the bonuses mentioned in OP.

This is what they do in WOTR and although I like the surity of the current movement the WOTR method is a much more sensible option than the completely random one rumoured.

Will also be interesting to see what characters like Kroak who generate pool dice do with their dice.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I think it would be unlikely for them to change the to hit and to wound tables.

They are the only thing that makes warhammer, warhammer (also 40k, which is why it is warhammer 40k)

Over the years everything else has changed in the engine, except for player based turns.


ALSO:
I'm hoping that for charging the mvt is roll the number of d6 and pick the highest, so cav are more likely to consistently roll hig, whereas infantry will be slower.
A unit of seekers charging up to 28 inches is ridiculous, but say 10 (regular mvt) + (dice rolls of 2, 4, 6) to give 16 is much more sensible.
Then add the bonuses mentioned in OP.

This is what they do in WOTR and although I like the surity of the current movement the WOTR method is a much more sensible option than the completely random one rumoured.

Will also be interesting to see what characters like Kroak who generate pool dice do with their dice.

Agreed, makes much more sense

I skipped several pages due to overload, so I may be repeating what someone else said. If so, I apologize profusely.
I play both WFB and 40k. Of the two, I prefer WFB because it makes you think and plan. And historical tactics work, so a history nut like myself finds satisfaction in applying them. Everything moves like fast cav? Ridiculous!
Have you ever tried to move a block of troops in a coherent fashion? It ain't easy. Movement is my favorite part of WFB and to dumb it down to almost 40k level may cause me to store the square bases and play exclusively round-base games. WFB is not 40k, but it seems the distinction is becoming more and more blurred. Does anyone else see this as a problem?

Yup. I've probably said it more than anyone else in this thread.

Its a shame, but again, these are ALL rumors, so we can't judge anything right now, no matter how confirmed they really are, they could very well be a bullshitter flakking with us for giggles.

Grimstonefire wrote:That actually sums up GW rules very well. Very appealing, a bit over priced, with a faint odour about them and more holes than you can count.

I actually laughed out loud.

My Dwarves are very excited by these rumours, a brief rundown of what sounds good from a dwarfy perspective

Stubborn for more ranks - my troops may be expensive but I can play a small number of units with good saves, stubborn, range of general (or general inside) and BSB nearby. Stick the slayers on one flank and try charging that!

Charge Ranges - I went from max charge 6" to max charge 9" and potentially 15" if it is really 2D6. Either way I might actually get to charge something for a change.

Bricks with flags score and objective based game. The army consists almost solely of bricks with flags. I can stick a thane with the stone on an objective and have a stubborn unit with high ld, good saves, poss re-rolls and poss stubborn and NO FLANKS! Hell i can stick my slayers on an objective and giggle.

New Magic Phase - cap of 12 PD and the potential to generate a Dispel dice for every dice they generate is good and closes the PD/Dispel dice gap. Presumably some kind of dwarfy bonus will apply to dispelling still and if my runesmiths still ad +1 I can potentially have more dispel dice than you have power dice.

And some magic armies might only have 2 ower dice to play with a turn. Ouch! Still adding level to the casting cost helps out a lot there.

War Machines no partial - self explanatorily good, time to bust out the grudge throwers.

2 Ranks for shooting, also good. As is TLOS.

Slowing down heavy cav, good, more turns to shoot them. And dwarves don't suffer from the slowness so we got considerably faster.

Skirmishers nerfed - terrible rule/idea, good for dwarves.

Slann look to be Nasty. Soul of Stone, Focused Rumination, Cupped hands of the old ones. Roll 1 power die, add a second for free, then add 4. Average of 11. If I miscast, I can transfer the result to my opponent. Or, I could just re-roll the result.

Kirasu wrote:fantasy has needed real line of sight for awhile now.. There is no reason a unit of skinks should block LOS to a unit of cold one riders considering one is twice as tall.. Negative modifiers to hit makes more sense

It wont be anything like 40k true line of sight because the shooting elements in WFB are no where near as mobile as 40k to line up specific shots

The abstraction of fantasy is / was one of its most attractive features for me. I like the freedom in being able to model whatever you want, because the game can essentially be played top-down all around base size and position, with terrain having clearly delineated functionality. There is zero confusion about what or where things are at, and actually the only way you can currently model to advantage is with the placement of monster heads, as breath weapons magically appear from their mouth not base (if you can't tell, I hate the hell out of this anomaly).

For the curious, I also liked area terrain in 40k and vomit with rage every time I hear arguments about modeling-to-advantage or try get my head around the discrepancy of hull / weapon mount LoS ...............

RE: The Other Changes > WTF is going on with fantasy?!

- Salvage

Boss_Salvage wrote:

Kirasu wrote:fantasy has needed real line of sight for awhile now.. There is no reason a unit of skinks should block LOS to a unit of cold one riders considering one is twice as tall.. Negative modifiers to hit makes more sense

It wont be anything like 40k true line of sight because the shooting elements in WFB are no where near as mobile as 40k to line up specific shots

The abstraction of fantasy is / was one of its most attractive features for me. I like the freedom in being able to model whatever you want, because the game can essentially be played top-down all around base size and position, with terrain having clearly delineated functionality. There is zero confusion about what or where things are at, and actually the only way you can currently model to advantage is with the placement of monster heads, as breath weapons magically appear from their mouth not base (if you can't tell, I hate the hell out of this anomaly).

For the curious, I also liked area terrain in 40k and vomit with rage every time I hear arguments about modeling-to-advantage or try get my head around the discrepancy of hull / weapon mount LoS ...............

RE: The Other Changes > WTF is going on with fantasy?!

- Salvage

My thoughts exactly.

But it's totally awesome that your Skaven Clanrat regiment can be seen from over the hill because you have Queek Headtaker in it. :( You're telling me it doesn't make sense to be able to light them up in such an instance?

I can see people trying to mail order via eBay and other sites the old metal giants now, if only because of the fact that they're going to be able to hide them behind terrain now. "Sorry, that small building means you can't see my Giant any more." Low-to-ground Hellpit Abomination conversions are going to become a big thing too.

If there is no armour mods anymore, salamanders just became useless vs the very models they are designed to kill, low T, great armour save models such as heavy cav and heavy infantry. Even with the increased numbers they will hit....

Supposedly the armor save modifiers are not changing as of the latest front-page update. They still remain.

Minsc wrote:But it's totally awesome that your Skaven Clanrat regiment can be seen from over the hill because you have Queek Headtaker in it. :( You're telling me it doesn't make sense to be able to light them up in such an instance?

I can see people trying to mail order via eBay and other sites the old metal giants now, if only because of the fact that they're going to be able to hide them behind terrain now. "Sorry, that small building means you can't see my Giant any more." Low-to-ground Hellpit Abomination conversions are going to become a big thing too.

Nonsense. It didn't happen in 40K, it wont happen in Warhammer.


Firstly, it's not a sword point or wing that counts, its the core of the model, which will hopefully be fully described in the rulebook as it is in the 40k rules.
Secondly, even if you can see a model in a unit, you'll still have to deal with the to hit modifiers. It's still much better to shoot at a big juicy target unit in the open than the head of one model in the distance.
Thirdly, in almost all instances, if you can see something, you yourself can be seen. In addition any to hit penalty you suffer when shooting at a target unit will in turn be suffered by the targeted enemy returning fire (barring good positioning and tactics). This makes it much harder to abuse, as shrinking you models means they can't see, and heightening them makes them much more difficult to hide.

I have absolutely no problem with the new Tlos rules. Charging is gonna be hard to swallow, but Tlos is nothing.

Yup, nothing wrong with Tlos. Especially since it seems the big nasties are getting plenty of buffs. I am interested to see what is considered the "core" of a model. Would a skink hide the core of a saurus? Or is the Saurus fair game? I'd imagine they would be fair game, which is fine. I just hope they do well in covering their bases, something that hasn't always been GW's strong point. Guess we'll need to make our forests taller. Hills blocking line of sight really isnt that important anymore, as they won't be as prevalent/necessary now. These current rules seem to make hills obsolete more or less, which is, once again, fine by me.

I would be a lot happier with true line of sight if GW wasn't releasing books with things that they have no official models for. They need to at least give us their idea for what it will look like as an actual figure and base size.

I'm sure WFB will show an example of core & cover, as in Mordheim.