Haven't played fantasy in four editions but always see eighth mentioned as a disaster. WhAt makes it the worst edition yet in some people's opinions and what rumors for upcoming ninth are promising?

Its all very subjective but for what its worth:

I think its one of the best editions - I still don't like some aspects - movement and tbh the higher levels magic seems to be very overpowered.

It did bring in good things like presmeausring and killing the front rank did not mean the rest of a unit just stood and watched....

Hopefully 9th Ed will have toned down higher level magic significantly, better objective based scenarios, allies and fortifications...

It must stink to play dwarves then if magic is so op

Don;t know - don;lt play them!

I know our Dwarf player is not happy about it sometimes - when you have spells that just win the game - especially when cast with IF so nothing he can do - but everyone gets that quite often sadly.

Dwarfs do have very deadly war machines - Runed up stonethrowers are pretty horrible

People whining about 8th.

DukeRustfield wrote:
People whining about 8th.

qft.

I think 8th has a few flaws, but compared to my only other tabletop wargaming experience (5th Ed 40k), I think it's absolutely fantastic. The balance, the equalize, any army having a shot to win. It's great.

Of course, when I jumped into 8th I had a lot of expendable money. Now that I don't, I realize and understand how some could complain 8th Ed is clearly designed for big armies (i.e. spend lots of money). That I don't like for sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its all very subjective but for what its worth:

I think its one of the best editions - I still don't like some aspects - movement and tbh the higher levels magic seems to be very overpowered.

It did bring in good things like presmeausring and killing the front rank did not mean the rest of a unit just stood and watched....

Hopefully 9th Ed will have toned down higher level magic significantly, better objective based scenarios, allies and fortifications...

no thank you, 40k player

A purple sun dwelling below in a pit of shades.

I also think 8th edition as a game is overall better than previous editions. Things I like:

-fighting with more ranks, and step up
-pre-measuring
-books tend to be better balanced
-Blood and Glory
-cleaner charges

things I don't like

-all or nothing victory points
-Watch Tower

Some people gripe about the magic phase but maybe a year after the edition launched till now I can't think of a time I lost to one of the uber spells.

The thing I like the most if that my regiments feel less like wound counters on a movement tray and more like a fighting block that gets to swing and attack.

Things I hate
- fighting with more ranks and step up (but necessary if characters are powerful like VC)
- pre-measuring
- "teleport" charges without wheeling
- no half-strength VP
- big magic

Things I like
- quite balanced
- nice scene of gamers

I really don't like 8th Edition, but It's not completely horrible once you're used to it ... Hope they will fix (in my view) the game in 9th

Clarence wrote:

things I don't like

-all or nothing victory points
-Watch Tower

They should simply go back to the age-old "units under 50% starting strength give-up 50% VP's"
Since there's no more spam-casting ad nausium of the Undead raise spells, you're not really giving them much of an advantage like they used to have back in the day... (and with step-up, their characters can't solo your entire front rank, so you can hit those main blocks of skellies and the like good and hard in return!)

Watch Tower scenario is simply dumb... either fix the rules for buildings or else drop the scenario as it's damn near impossible to shift any kind of a deathstar out of the tower.

Clarence wrote:
Some people gripe about the magic phase but maybe a year after the edition launched till now I can't think of a time I lost to one of the uber spells.

The thing I like the most if that my regiments feel less like wound counters on a movement tray and more like a fighting block that gets to swing and attack.

The magic phase troubles depend entirely on what army you play... If you're an Elf or play the likes of WoC for example, you only tend to care about Final Trans or (potentially) Dwellers raping your army.
If on the other hand you play say, Undead of either flavour, Ogres, Orcs, Lizzies, Dwarfs, Nurgle Daemons... well, enjoy those initiative test-or-die spells on your measly I2 or so!

Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:
People whining about 8th.

qft.

I think 8th has a few flaws, but compared to my only other tabletop wargaming experience (5th Ed 40k), I think it's absolutely fantastic. The balance, the equalize, any army having a shot to win. It's great.

Of course, when I jumped into 8th I had a lot of expendable money. Now that I don't, I realize and understand how some could complain 8th Ed is clearly designed for big armies (i.e. spend lots of money). That I don't like for sure.

Yeah, people will always complain about anything, as long as there's at least one flaw - however small - to be picked upon.

But yes, I really enjoy 8th Edition Fantasy. I'm still looking forward to Ninth, because change is fresh and, hopefully, it will bring good things too (as long as too much stuff doesn't get nerfed I'm fine )

I think Fantasy as a whole is designed for big armies with lots of models. True, 8th Edition doesn't favour armies that spend most of their points on, say, a few monsters, but, as the inherent flaw of Fantasy in general, I think you'll always need to amass a large army (and hence a large budget) to get the most out of the game.

Mr Morden wrote:
Hopefully 9th Ed will have toned down higher level magic significantly, better objective based scenarios, allies and fortifications...

Agree and disagree (but as Dr Cheesteak said, these suggestions are very 40k-y)

- I think Magic needs to be reworked as a whole, the system isn't great. It still needs to remain fairly powerful though.
- I'm not sure about "objective" based missions, like those in 40k, but I do think the rulebook scenarios need to be varied up a lot more. Blood or Glory is different, but can be a pain, and the same goes for Watchtower and that has stupid victory conditions too. Dawn Attack is the only other decent variation - it forces you to change your strategy around a potentially bad deployment you've been forced into. I have a few ideas of other scenarios, but I don't think this post is the best place to mention them.
- There's no point me trying to come to a conclusion about allies. It's practically a given in 9th edition, looking at how successful 40k allies have been for GW. I think it will work fairly well in Fantasy though, there's very clear-cut sides so there'll be no "Wtf, Space Marines are Battle Brothers with Tau!" moments. As long as it doesn't break the competitive scene too much. Non-allied 40k armies are a precious and welcome rarity in competitive 40k.
- Fortifications? No. Most definitely not. At least not with the current building rules. You want to avoid stuff like a Lizardmen player taking a Watchtower to bunker his saurus in. That's a horrible combination to be given without fighting for, and completely out of place.

8th does favour big blocks which is unfair to some armies, as well as blatantly being all about selling more models. I dislike the big spells, they need toning down. I'd prefer them to be wounds rather than removing models I think. I'd also like to make cavalry a bit more effective.

Primarily though I'd like to give big monsters more survivabillity versus cannons. These things have the potential to be beautiful centrepieces in a players army but tend to get shot off the board rather quickly, I feel this is a shame.

You can't fundamentally throw out big spells without taking out one of the major counters to some armies. Mega elite blocks are dangerous to use because they are primary target #1 for such spells. If the only choice vs. 750pt blocks are to die to them, ignore them, pray to redirect them, or use your own 750pt block on them, that limits your options and dumbs down the game. It looks like those old medieval historical battles I see with 8923489235 pikemen staring off at each other (which is accurate, but not amazingly interesting).

The BRB has to maneuver in relation to the army books. You can do stuff like step up and change movement and charge rules, but Lizardman book is out and isn't going to be rewritten anytime soon. Saurus are Saurus. If 9th removed magic completely (or you took it out now from 8th) some armies would become vastly more powerful (Ogres, WoC, DoC) some would become completely unplayable (VC, TK) and some in between.

Overall the worst thing to happen in 8th is one word.....steadfast

from a competitive point of view the worst thing was awarding no points for a unit that isnt killed to the man....even if its fleeing when the game is over, you still get nothing as long as ONE single guy is alive....TERRIBLE change.

I really like Steadfast, actually. If I paint a whole regiment of infanty, I'd rather not get them easily broken by 5 knights, thank you.

And it seems to me that most cavalry are doing fine in 8th (Empire knights, Silver Helms, Brets...) not to mention the ever popular Monstrous Cav. In fact, as the year roll on I'm seeing less and less deep steadfast blocks and more fighty units.

And again, losing the game to one big spell doesn't happen often in the group that I play with. Generally speaking,

A) Your opponent needs access to the lore.
B) They need to roll that spell.
C) They need enough power dice/hit the casting value.
D) You don't scroll it.
E) Your army is well designed and can absorb losing one unit.

Clarence wrote:
I really like Steadfast, actually. If I paint a whole regiment of infanty, I'd rather not get them easily broken by 5 knights, thank you.

And it seems to me that most cavalry are doing fine in 8th (Empire knights, Silver Helms, Brets...) not to mention the ever popular Monstrous Cav. In fact, as the year roll on I'm seeing less and less deep steadfast blocks and more fighty units.

And again, losing the game to one big spell doesn't happen often in the group that I play with. Generally speaking,

A) Your opponent needs access to the lore.
B) They need to roll that spell.
C) They need enough power dice/hit the casting value.
D) You don't scroll it.
E) Your army is well designed and can absorb losing one unit.

Happens alot in our gaming environment - usually with Irristable Force - which is what most people tend to roll for anyway with the big spells - so there is zero way to do anything about it..........Not seen any issues with anyone getting the right spell in the games here but it has gone down the competative army list route tbh.

one recent example I observed was a first turn IF spell taking out a Slann and most of his unit with Dwellers (I think) leaves a very big whole to climb out of......

Clarence wrote:
I really like Steadfast, actually. If I paint a whole regiment of infanty, I'd rather not get them easily broken by 5 knights, thank you.

And it seems to me that most cavalry are doing fine in 8th (Empire knights, Silver Helms, Brets...) not to mention the ever popular Monstrous Cav. In fact, as the year roll on I'm seeing less and less deep steadfast blocks and more fighty units.

And again, losing the game to one big spell doesn't happen often in the group that I play with. Generally speaking,

A) Your opponent needs access to the lore.
B) They need to roll that spell.
C) They need enough power dice/hit the casting value.
D) You don't scroll it.
E) Your army is well designed and can absorb losing one unit.

On the same vein, when 30 mindrazored corsairs go into the flank of a bus of clanrats, kill 1 model under the necessary amount to break steadfast, then the rule becomes stupid.

It should be done in a way that makes you consider the positioning. Not be like, oh I have a million ranks, I can get hit in the flank and hold.

I think it should be reworked to: You don't get it at all if hit in the rear, and you get put on -1 LD if hit in the flank.

Or, if you lose over a quarter of your unit in a single round, you lose steadfast automatically.


As for what makes 8th bad? Rulebook and Army book wording. Sure, magic is powerful. But if you have paid attention to any fluff from any edition, you will know it's meant to be. And it's random. People moan and gripe about the super spells, but try and reliably cast one on a double 1 magic phase. The pool generation mechanic is inherently opposed to making people able to rely on magic to win games a viable strategy. And a balanced list will be able to operate if it loses a single unit to that spell.

Very unfriendly to new players . Normal sized games start around 2000 points .And that makes even high cost armies like chaos very big . Smaller games are ruled by powerful deathstars and uber armies which some armies don't have access to or theirs are weaker , which offten ends with them having 1 way of building a list and even then you can be easily tabled by IF sun .

Tower scenario is stupid , I don't know what GW was thinking when they wrote it . And on a more local level the older HE army book more or less killed WFB here after the first 5 tournaments had 3 out of 3 HE armies in top 4 each one with teclis. Some people hoped that new players would emarge after a new codex , but that didn't happen because of the high entry cost. Old players on the other hand switched systems or have armies like WE or bretonians , which they couldn't sell, and don't want to play even 1000pts games.

Not enough monsters and large center piece models. This is because of cannons and warmachines. Its to hard of a counter and frankly a huge problem. Im sure GW knows this because all those big centerpiece models are not selling. I know I wont play again untill cannons come down to earth vs monsters.

Table wrote:
Not enough monsters and large center piece models. This is because of cannons and warmachines. Its to hard of a counter and frankly a huge problem. Im sure GW knows this because all those big centerpiece models are not selling. I know I wont play again untill cannons come down to earth vs monsters.

Monsters with a ward save are worth it, occasionally even a requirement. (HE birdies, DP's & Greaters)
And if you know there's 0 'Flaming Attacks' cannons, then any monster with a good regen save is also viable. (Abomb, Hydra)

Still, unless GW decides to make cannons fire with regular BS or some type of similar mechanic, (maybe even a set to-hit roll ala TK shooting?), they'll continue to be disgustingly accurate laser cannon equivalents.

Orock wrote:
Haven't played fantasy in four editions but always see eighth mentioned as a disaster. WhAt makes it the worst edition yet in some people's opinions and what rumors for upcoming ninth are promising?

Having owned and played to some extent all editions since the mid 80's I think 8th is the best thus far. Not perfect of course, but gives me the feeling of... well a fantasy battle more than the others.

A few spells need to be toned down.

Cannon and monster issues can be solved by making sure you have reasonable scenery and some walls about the battlefield. Mounted Monster issues can be solved by scenery, and house ruling that the cannon ball either hits the monster (1-4) or the rider (5-6).

Too much dangerous terrain.

 snurl wrote:
Too much dangerous terrain.

To me, it feels like terrain doesn't make enough of a difference like it used to. :(

Steadfast rule needs to be worded better so its not so ridiculous and get rid of spells like "Dwellers Below" that can basically give you an instant win against certain armies, that ruined 8th edition at my FLGS.

It isn't perfect but i like it more than 6th and 7th. The changes 8th brought got me into fantasy in a big way. If the big spells for magic got toned down it would be my only major gripe.

First off, GW doesnt really hide behind the pretense of balance anymore, other than to offer new models that are even better than the ones you already own! In a very British way, they leave it up to the players to engage in gentlemanly combat and not abuse the vast grey areas of rules at the expense of the overall fun of the experience. However, a SIZABLE portion of the gamer population is more interested in winning the game than the opponents experience during it.

All or Nothing victory points really tilted the scale too far to the "deathstar" end of the unit size spectrum, when it was already trending that way with improved charge, steadfast, and step up rules.

This was supposed to be counter acted by improved warmachines and magic, and to an extent it was. However, those attacks also got much better vs monsters and lone characters...driving most generals into units, which you then want to be large enough to not give up all the points you've got in it, so you get another rank or two of guys. Then you realize that at this point if you lose that unit you lose the game, so you might as well make sure that you never lose the unit by adding another rank or two, and maybe a BSB. And since at this point the opponents only hope is an irresistible 6th spell, you might as well put an extra rank or two to absorb that... And since there arnt any scenarios that fault you for this tactic, there is a very strong argument for this sort of escalation from a purely tactical, playing within the rules, deal with it, sort of view.

The problem is that it is a terrible bore to simulate battles that involve that type of army composition, in the same way that its a bore to play against pure gunlines on the back edge of their deployment, or the super magic heavy demon lists of the last edition.

It comes down to "does your gimmick work, or not?"

And after hours of assembling, painting, transporting, and setting up, many players yearn for something more than that to determine the outcome of their games.

My biggest complaint is that maneuver and flanking does exactly squat in this edition, yet another factor that favors the Deathstar builds. With Steadfast as it is there's no need to guard your flanks, so there's no need to take units to guard your flanks, so you can throw everything into that totally tactically unsound single unit... and suddenly it no longer looks like a battleline; it's just one big brick and a pair of ubercheap throwaway units.

Get two 'armies' like that on the field and it doesn't look like a battlefield so much as it does a demolition derby - the biggest, toughest car wins. And who cares about a piddling little thing like skill....

I think the basic ruleset for 8th is fine. All it needs is tweaks. People are saying that 8th is not doing very well, but I am not sure they are factoring in the fact that GW has been going more hog wild on smaller box sets with each army making pricing more difficult.

Magic - certain lores need to be toned down - others need to be buffed.
Cannons - When basic cannons got upgraded to do the same damage as the Empire's Great Cannons, this really threw a nutshot to monsters making them the ultimate counter to quite a bit on the field. I am not sure if the newer cannons (Ironblaster, Brass Cannon, etc.) are counted now as Great Cannons, but this needs to be looked at.
Steadfast - I like having large units of infantry being harder to break, but it does silly for them not to have to worry about getting hit in the flanks.
Skirmishers/Light Cav - Can we bring back 360 arcs please? It makes no sense for them to only be able to look forward.
March Blocking - I will be honest, I think this should be a lot stricter then just a Ld check. It makes Fast Cav much more useful.

Oh and can we please bring back Pistols in close combat. I will love somebody forever and ever for that one.

IMO, I am more worried with 9th if it is true that things are being more 'streamlined' (aka gutted).

Had my first few games in this edition and I must say that magic realy is OP. Sure cannons are accurate and can snipe stuff , but when your opponent has 6 turns to cast a army wiping spell , which you can stop only 2 times with scrolls , then even if it he doesn't get IP it still is in favor on magic heavy and I heavy armies.

Canons and broken magic is really the only complaints I have.

Spell 6 is too powerful in most lores although it is surprisingly spell 5 in the Lore of Shadow, although I wouldn't want to discount Mindrazor as a crazy good spell.

As was stated, canons just obliterate high cost centerpiece models. I am building my WoC army with lots of 'centerpiece' models, including a FW Merwyrm Chimera, FW Khorne DP, and a Slaughterbrute... even considered finding points for a carmine dragon bottom giant top Shaggoth... but I know that it's too much money for not enough survivability... but oh well. I know those units are hard as nails to crack without a cannon. DPs can be especially rough.

Overall I think it's a great game though, loved it since it was released and will hopefully not be saddened by 9th Edition rumors of allies and forts.

Pistols count as an extra weapon in melee.

I don't have problems with many of the things in 8th that others do.
Many are just hard counters to another.
If you build a balanced list there isn't this absolute fear of what will come.
Examples...
Who truly fears the cannons..huge monsters and single uber characters.
Who truly fears the most destructive of spells...the 500+ point deathstars.
If you have an uber character on a dragon and your opponent has a cannon, it now means that your character isn't going to just go flying everywhere an anywhere he wants.
Don't want 1/3 of your army getting wiped out by spells...take smaller units leaving more targets. there is only 12 magic dice max.
Steadfast makes things challenging but it levels out those poor units like skeletons and clanrats (just for example) that are just getting stomped by heavy and monstrous cavalry. How many times would you see clanrats not break versus a unit of heavy cav without steadfast? they are bound to lose by 3 or 4.
Flanks are still highly viable. 1 rank fights on the flank vs your 2 and they won't get parry saves.
Is it a perfect system...no, they never are. But we find it to be lots of fun and leaves plenty of room for tactical play.
Our games are rarely one sided except when the dice gods hate you all day.

but dwarfs for example don't have deathstars , nor monsters , nor magic and if they take small units they get destroyed easier. And if something forces those small units up the field your opponent will focus on the one with the BSB , runelords anyway . the only thing different is going to be them having an easier time to kill of their units.

I just started , but I don't think there is a different way to play dwarfs then a care park.

The edition isn't bad. If played intelligently, 8th is an amazing edition. It's just the players who ruin it.

If played intelligently, it has minimal flaws, I.E. Steadfast, and the sixth spells.

However, both of those are easily dealt with.

Steadfast is done by intelligent gameplay. Whittling down the unit enough before you charge. And magic is inherently random. I've had a dwellers kill 1 out of 20 glade guard before. You can't fix the magic system without breaking it. It has to be random, you organise the spells/spell generation, it stops being it, and becomes something else.

Given recent debates I feel the need to post that I agree 100% with Peasant.
(DukeRustfield's first response was also spot on.)

And magic is inherently random. I've had a dwellers kill 1 out of 20 glade guard before.

Good thing all armies played are made out of high I elfs.

Makumba wrote:

And magic is inherently random. I've had a dwellers kill 1 out of 20 glade guard before.

Good thing all armies played are made out of high I elfs.

Good thing Dwellers targets strength. <3

Which counting actualy usable units elf use more with str 4 or higher . Dwarfs take what hammerers . WE alone have different type of wood spirits with str 4 or higher.

Of the killer spells, the two that really need to die are P.Sun & Mindrazzor.

The first because it can feasibly hit your opponent's entire battleline and targets initiative, which is a huge kick in the nutts to about a full third or more the armies in the game... (TK's, VC's, Dwarfs, Lizzies, Ogres, Orc-centric O&G's, Nurgle Daemons)
That's 6 entire armies and an entire subset of a 7th that can pretty much instantly lose 2/3rd's or more of their army to a gimmicky spell.

Mindrazzor is just plain cheap, especially since GW seems to constantly flip-flop in their FAQ's over weather or not a unit can benefit from their General's Inspiring Presence rule to gain an instant S9/10.


The rest of the killer spells while hugely annoying, especially when just brainlessly 5/6-diced can be somewhat mitigated to some degree or another.
Final Trans for example is obnoxious, but it's only ever a 33% average of the unit that will fall to it. (and characters at least need a 6 to be hit by it)
Pit while still a PITA for low initiative armies, only uses the small template and can't run across your entire army.
Dwellers is rude to low strength units, but outside of elves, most of your elite units have base S4 or better.
13th only effects infantry.

Instant kill spells may still be 'bad' in general for the game as it's simply a lazy mechanic, (especially the instant knocking off of full wound characters), and I'm hoping that 9th at least tones them down, (maybe characters only take a single wound, or else spells like Pit/Dwellers can't hurt monstrous characters, etc...)

P.Sun especially & Mindrazzor need some serious nerfing though.

Instant kill spells may still be 'bad' in general for the game as it's simply a lazy mechanic, (especially the instant knocking off of full wound characters), and I'm hoping that 9th at least tones them down, (maybe characters only take a single wound, or else spells like Pit/Dwellers can't hurt monstrous characters, etc...)

Won't that make things like Gutstars return with a vengeance?

Of course it would.

Chosenstar was the tactic at the time. That was the first real star. Because they had crazy good stats and could shrug off most mega spells. Just as points denial they were really difficult and backed up by a zillion double attacking marauders with 1 mark that cost 20 or whatever for an entire unit.

You can't just pull out mega spells without buffing something else. War machines still aren't a solid counter to them. A gutstar wouldn't care if you have 2 cannons.

There are benefits for putting tons of troops in a unit. Buffs, magic items (like banners), LD from chars, steadfast, point denial, hitting power.

The detriment of having tons of troops in a unit is debuff, harder to maneuver, easier to template, mega spells. Yeah, you can be flanked and such, but you can just turn and kill them unless they are also significant.

Makumba wrote:
Which counting actualy usable units elf use more with str 4 or higher . Dwarfs take what hammerers . WE alone have different type of wood spirits with str 4 or higher.

Elves make up for their low strength in other areas, such as their high Initiative. They might lose half the models in a unit to Dwellers, but they'll only lose a sixth of those hit by Purple Sun.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Of the killer spells, the two that really need to die are P.Sun & Mindrazzor.

The first because it can feasibly hit your opponent's entire battleline and targets initiative, which is a huge kick in the nutts to about a full third or more the armies in the game... (TK's, VC's, Dwarfs, Lizzies, Ogres, Orc-centric O&G's, Nurgle Daemons)
That's 6 entire armies and an entire subset of a 7th that can pretty much instantly lose 2/3rd's or more of their army to a gimmicky spell.

Mindrazzor is just plain cheap, especially since GW seems to constantly flip-flop in their FAQ's over weather or not a unit can benefit from their General's Inspiring Presence rule to gain an instant S9/10.


The rest of the killer spells while hugely annoying, especially when just brainlessly 5/6-diced can be somewhat mitigated to some degree or another.
Final Trans for example is obnoxious, but it's only ever a 33% average of the unit that will fall to it. (and characters at least need a 6 to be hit by it)
Pit while still a PITA for low initiative armies, only uses the small template and can't run across your entire army.
Dwellers is rude to low strength units, but outside of elves, most of your elite units have base S4 or better.
13th only effects infantry.

Instant kill spells may still be 'bad' in general for the game as it's simply a lazy mechanic, (especially the instant knocking off of full wound characters), and I'm hoping that 9th at least tones them down, (maybe characters only take a single wound, or else spells like Pit/Dwellers can't hurt monstrous characters, etc...)

P.Sun especially & Mindrazzor need some serious nerfing though.

Really? Mindrazor? A spell that targets ONE unit for ONE turn. You know how to stop mindrazor? Don't charge the unit that has it. It is nowhere near as bad as spells like dwellers or final trans where it is just roll dice and remove models.

Yeah, I feel kind of dissapointed to be honest. Not once hav I seen one of these game winning super spells actually happen in roughly 50 games of 8th ed. Sure, Iv'e seen them cripple a unit here and there, block advances with a vortex eslewhere, but never seen a game decided on one spell.

Wow, you would have to be a fool to have one single unit be soooo essesntial to the success of your army that defeat is a forgone conclusion if a nasty spell kills a third of it. But we arent fools. Right guys? Right?!

Orock wrote:
It must stink to play dwarves then if magic is so op

Cannons are pretty good too.....

Eh, the problem with Mindrazor is that it's very "point and click". Cast it on practically any unit save for something like Zombies and they'll wreck face. Some units benefit from it more than others, sure, but every unit will really benefit from it, crucially, against any enemy unit. Change it to allow the enemy his normal armour save, and suddenly it's not so useful. You'll have to pick your fights a lot more intelligently.

By the way ... to those who think that steadfast is bad
It is a mandatory rule as soon as you include step-up and 2+ ranks of attacks plus ASF / Hatred being handed out like candy
Otherwise Horde / Regular armies would be completely unplayable against high damage output ones

I had a real flash of inspiration on how to improve the whole thing. Will never happen but here goes.

Collapse ALL special rules, attacks, stuff like that into a single stat line and set of rules for moving, ranged combat, magic and melee. (and even up the points values to suit)
No more rules lawyering.
No more confusion.

e.g. roll stomps & impact hits into the attacks stat.
Roll all that ASF and re-rolls into the initiative stat.
No need for mega long rule books except the fluff and pictures.
Nice, understandable game.

GW can still come up with new models and new uber stat lines for them. And the game becomes much more accessible, simple and comprehensible.

That doesn't sound appealing at all. While there could be some cleaning up of rules in general, I don't think oversimplifying things to that degree is the way to go.

 Evertras wrote:
That doesn't sound appealing at all. While there could be some cleaning up of rules in general, I don't think oversimplifying things to that degree is the way to go.

Agreed. Respectfully I would not play the game if they tried to make it like that. Special rules and such are fun.

TanKoL wrote:
By the way ... to those who think that steadfast is bad
It is a mandatory rule as soon as you include step-up and 2+ ranks of attacks plus ASF / Hatred being handed out like candy
Otherwise Horde / Regular armies would be completely unplayable against high damage output ones

7th edition in a nutshell, nobody took major troop blocks and only heavy cavalry/herohammer blocks in order to flank and instantly kill entire units.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

TanKoL wrote:
By the way ... to those who think that steadfast is bad
It is a mandatory rule as soon as you include step-up and 2+ ranks of attacks plus ASF / Hatred being handed out like candy
Otherwise Horde / Regular armies would be completely unplayable against high damage output ones

7th edition in a nutshell, nobody took major troop blocks and only heavy cavalry/herohammer blocks in order to flank and instantly kill entire units.

Steadfast by itself isn't bad. But Steadfast combo'd with the BSB and/or General's Ld is simply too much...

While it's dumb that 5 dudes on horses could kill 7 enemies and then run down the other 33 guys, it's also equally stupid that your giant-a$$ dragon massacres 20 guys, but the remaining 10 are automatically Ld10 because they have a rank.

Steadfast honestly shouldn't apply when 50% or more of your unit just got butchered in a single round - outside of Unbreakable or something, you should be running like a scared little elf when that happens!
It's also a kick in the pants to Undead who gain absolutely 0 benefits from being Steadfast. Again, at the very least, being Steadfast for them should at least mitigate some of their added crumble wounds.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

TanKoL wrote:
By the way ... to those who think that steadfast is bad
It is a mandatory rule as soon as you include step-up and 2+ ranks of attacks plus ASF / Hatred being handed out like candy
Otherwise Horde / Regular armies would be completely unplayable against high damage output ones

7th edition in a nutshell, nobody took major troop blocks and only heavy cavalry/herohammer blocks in order to flank and instantly kill entire units.

Steadfast by itself isn't bad. But Steadfast combo'd with the BSB and/or General's Ld is simply too much...

While it's dumb that 5 dudes on horses could kill 7 enemies and then run down the other 33 guys, it's also equally stupid that your giant-a$$ dragon massacres 20 guys, but the remaining 10 are automatically Ld10 because they have a rank.

Steadfast honestly shouldn't apply when 50% or more of your unit just got butchered in a single round - outside of Unbreakable or something, you should be running like a scared little elf when that happens!
It's also a kick in the pants to Undead who gain absolutely 0 benefits from being Steadfast. Again, at the very least, being Steadfast for them should at least mitigate some of their added crumble wounds.

Wonder what it would be like if Steadfast instead cut any loss by 50%. So dragon wins by 4, but Steadfast so it's only 2. Still shaken, but not obliterated. Probably not enough in the long run.

Doesn't work Evertras, when facing angry Corsairs or stuff like that, you might be looking at 20 dead bodies

Yeah, it just seems to be complicating things further anyway. To be fair, if you're losing by 20, at THAT point it really feels like running isn't an unreasonable outcome.

 Evertras wrote:
Yeah, it just seems to be complicating things further anyway. To be fair, if you're losing by 20, at THAT point it really feels like running isn't an unreasonable outcome.

Yeah. I think the idea behind Steadfast was sound as I never used large blocks of infantry in 7th but they've swung too far in the other direction. When giant nuke entire units spells are the main counter you're concept could use some work.

I'm not sure they've swung TOO far, but maybe a touch toned down somehow. It's just such a tricky balance, since big infantry blocks do need a reason to exist and the idea is solid. I think I'd vote to not even touch it unless someone came up with a fantastic idea, it's something that's at least workable even if it's not ideal right now. Much better than 7th anyway.

 Evertras wrote:
I'm not sure they've swung TOO far, but maybe a touch toned down somehow. It's just such a tricky balance, since big infantry blocks do need a reason to exist and the idea is solid. I think I'd vote to not even touch it unless someone came up with a fantastic idea, it's something that's at least workable even if it's not ideal right now. Much better than 7th anyway.

I think there's a basis in the disruption mechanic to get it right. Perhaps not have being disrupted cancel it completely but impose -'s on the LD check or have each rank in a flanking unit count as two etc.

It needs to be a bigger deal if you allow your unit to be flanked/rear charged.

Yeah, you just want to avoid the giant block of infantry booking it because they got smacked by five guys on horses in the flank who killed a few.

How about the combat res penalties to leadership still apply for flanking and rear? Getting weirdly convoluted again, though. Probably not the thread for all this brainstorming anyway. Or maybe it is. I dunno.

 Evertras wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

TanKoL wrote:
By the way ... to those who think that steadfast is bad
It is a mandatory rule as soon as you include step-up and 2+ ranks of attacks plus ASF / Hatred being handed out like candy
Otherwise Horde / Regular armies would be completely unplayable against high damage output ones

7th edition in a nutshell, nobody took major troop blocks and only heavy cavalry/herohammer blocks in order to flank and instantly kill entire units.

Steadfast by itself isn't bad. But Steadfast combo'd with the BSB and/or General's Ld is simply too much...

While it's dumb that 5 dudes on horses could kill 7 enemies and then run down the other 33 guys, it's also equally stupid that your giant-a$$ dragon massacres 20 guys, but the remaining 10 are automatically Ld10 because they have a rank.

Steadfast honestly shouldn't apply when 50% or more of your unit just got butchered in a single round - outside of Unbreakable or something, you should be running like a scared little elf when that happens!
It's also a kick in the pants to Undead who gain absolutely 0 benefits from being Steadfast. Again, at the very least, being Steadfast for them should at least mitigate some of their added crumble wounds.

Wonder what it would be like if Steadfast instead cut any loss by 50%. So dragon wins by 4, but Steadfast so it's only 2. Still shaken, but not obliterated. Probably not enough in the long run.

I actually really like this change. It's simple and makes Steadfast still useful, but not completely overpowered and is beneficial to Unstable units too.

Although it would complicate it further, you could vary the percentage based on flank/rear charges. I.e. Steadfast only cuts losses by 25% if charged in flank or rear.

Okay, because I don't think it's been said yet... Mat Ward writing more Fantasy army books!

1. Daemons going from one extreme to the opposite.

2. High Elves getting an instant hard counter/f-you button to Daemons 2 months later.

3. Dark Elves now looking entirely like "High Elves +1-10" in almost every regard.


More than 6-dicing the FTW spells, I hate rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock hammer... Campaigns & Leagues for example are far less fun when you know your opponent is getting a 'win button', or else is basically 'your army but better'.

The only thing making 8th edition "bad" is the cost of entry for new players. Sure, WoC and Ogres can get in with less expensive armies at a comparable cost to 40K, but good luck if you are interested in Skaven, Orcs & Goblins, or Vampire Counts etc.

I really think the price to build an army is what is keeping new blood from taking the plunge and causing veterans to pass when their armies get redone or there is a new rule edition and they need to readjust and buy more variety.
The new Dark Elves drive this point home with the new Witch Elves box at $60 for 10 core troops. $180-$240 just to get 1 playable unit that is maybe 1/6th of your total army points is really pushing the wallet hard despite the fact they are fantastic models.

When you can start for less than $100-$150 armies in Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, Dystopian Wars etc. Its not hard to see why younger gamers and college students are not playing this game like back in the day.

Fewer new people is what hits the hobby hardest.

 D6Damager wrote:
The only thing making 8th edition "bad" is the cost of entry for new players.

I can agree with this.
My lady and I basically started with 8th.

We are fine taking aeons to get armies together, but even so there are units that are just not going to really happen and some fun ideas just ignored because of cost.

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
Pistols count as an extra weapon in melee.

Apologies. I meant 'be able to shoot them in close combat again - S4 AP attacks' like in the old days.

 D6Damager wrote:
The only thing making 8th edition "bad" is the cost of entry for new players. Sure, WoC and Ogres can get in with less expensive armies at a comparable cost to 40K, but good luck if you are interested in Skaven, Orcs & Goblins, or Vampire Counts etc.

I really think the price to build an army is what is keeping new blood from taking the plunge and causing veterans to pass when their armies get redone or there is a new rule edition and they need to readjust and buy more variety.
The new Dark Elves drive this point home with the new Witch Elves box at $60 for 10 core troops. $180-$240 just to get 1 playable unit that is maybe 1/6th of your total army points is really pushing the wallet hard despite the fact they are fantastic models.

Yep. And unfortunately, it doesn't seem like GW has gotten the picture. This was the last hurdle that kept me from getting new people into the game at my LGS while all the old guys kept fading away. It also seems that even though Fantasy and 40k are getting similar treatments in terms of shorter boxes and higher prices, it seems rather clear that Fantasy has a greater chance of sinking to the bottom faster.

I don't play fantasy much as I started in 7th and only had a few games but here goes.

I don't like how init doesn't really matter anymore. I see a LOT of hordes & since you get full step ups init doesn't seem important & great weapons are rampant.

Possible fix: 1st 2 ranks can always fight but no step ups. as in if 10 guys get slaughtered too bad.

stubborn if you outnumber your enemy

Possible fix: Cavalry ignore this rule. This has made cavalry useless as a cavalry charge can win combay by 5, but oh look we outnumber you so stubborn, here's our general so Ld10, oh & BSB so rerolls. Cavalry just don't feel like the line breakers I imagine them to be.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I don't play fantasy much as I started in 7th and only had a few games but here goes.

I don't like how init doesn't really matter anymore. I see a LOT of hordes & since you get full step ups init doesn't seem important & great weapons are rampant.

Possible fix: 1st 2 ranks can always fight but no step ups. as in if 10 guys get slaughtered too bad.

stubborn if you outnumber your enemy

Possible fix: Cavalry ignore this rule. This has made cavalry useless as a cavalry charge can win combay by 5, but oh look we outnumber you so stubborn, here's our general so Ld10, oh & BSB so rerolls. Cavalry just don't feel like the line breakers I imagine them to be.

Ugh no, I would never go back to No Step Up again to allow Combat Characters to beat out 5-7 rank units. I don't want to NEED a 10 rank horde to potentially survive.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I don't play fantasy much as I started in 7th and only had a few games but here goes.

I don't like how init doesn't really matter anymore. I see a LOT of hordes & since you get full step ups init doesn't seem important & great weapons are rampant.

Possible fix: 1st 2 ranks can always fight but no step ups. as in if 10 guys get slaughtered too bad.

stubborn if you outnumber your enemy

Possible fix: Cavalry ignore this rule. This has made cavalry useless as a cavalry charge can win combay by 5, but oh look we outnumber you so stubborn, here's our general so Ld10, oh & BSB so rerolls. Cavalry just don't feel like the line breakers I imagine them to be.

Ugh no, I would never go back to No Step Up again to allow Combat Characters to beat out 5-7 rank units. I don't want to NEED a 10 rank horde to potentially survive.

Definitely agree, Step Up was a huge improvement. 7th makes subpar infantry exponentially worse because they won't even get to use their crappy attack in the first place. Initiative becomes more important for smaller units vs smaller units, so Steadfast might be the real culprit if anything. Just don't get rid of Step Up, I love it even with my I5 army.

I didn't like removing the casting limit of wizards, personally. I think the devastation some magic causes in 8th could be mitigated if people were made to pay for a higher chance of rolling IF instead of being able to throw max dice at it regardless of wizard level.

I also think it makes sense to have to pay points for the privilege of throwing higher-levelled spells around; that a level 1 wizard can just as easily throw at powered up fireball at the enemy as a level 4 doesn't make much sense to me, and higher wizard levels only seems to matter now for spell selection, whereas in 7th it was also the difference between being able to cast the first few spells, and being able to cast everything from your lore.

Then again, I've not played 8th since it came out.

 Evertras wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I don't play fantasy much as I started in 7th and only had a few games but here goes.

I don't like how init doesn't really matter anymore. I see a LOT of hordes & since you get full step ups init doesn't seem important & great weapons are rampant.

Possible fix: 1st 2 ranks can always fight but no step ups. as in if 10 guys get slaughtered too bad.

stubborn if you outnumber your enemy

Possible fix: Cavalry ignore this rule. This has made cavalry useless as a cavalry charge can win combay by 5, but oh look we outnumber you so stubborn, here's our general so Ld10, oh & BSB so rerolls. Cavalry just don't feel like the line breakers I imagine them to be.

Ugh no, I would never go back to No Step Up again to allow Combat Characters to beat out 5-7 rank units. I don't want to NEED a 10 rank horde to potentially survive.

Definitely agree, Step Up was a huge improvement. 7th makes subpar infantry exponentially worse because they won't even get to use their crappy attack in the first place. Initiative becomes more important for smaller units vs smaller units, so Steadfast might be the real culprit if anything. Just don't get rid of Step Up, I love it even with my I5 army.

Yeah, that rule in seventh was terrible. It basically gave high ini units the advantage.

Magic is a bit silly in 8th. There should be a limit to the number of dispel dice/ power dice, like "a wizard can use up to the same number of dice as one more than his casting level. For example, a lv4 wizard may use up to 5 dice with casting or dispelling." At the moment, it's possible to have a cheap lvl1 wizard commit suicide by rolling a bunch of dice and firing off one of the unit killer spells.

I really enjoyed 7th and 6th, I feel that the army books were what broke that edition.

For 8th, it has it's good points but I don't like the game size creep, the super spells and steadfast. I think the community is pretty consistent with disliking those elements. I'd be okay if Steadfast was removed by flanking and if Irresistable Force was removed and replaced with a double 1 miscast mechanic.

Eh, steadfast is ok, imo.

It just needs a few counters, like cavalry. Because you know, disrupting ranked infantry is kind of their job.

I quite like 8th edition. A lot of people who play it seem to enjoy it.

I agree with an above poster though about the "game size creep" aspect though...but thats just GW for you lol

Honestly I prefer the larger game sizes as it really does give more of a proper armies feel instead of the old 2k/2250pts which felt more like your 'uber Lord and his 50 best drinking buddies.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eh, steadfast is ok, imo.

It just needs a few counters, like cavalry. Because you know, disrupting ranked infantry is kind of their job.

.Actually from what I read, most cavalry in all historical eras don't charge ranked disiplined troops - as they loose - now given that some cavalry in warhammer is not normal but monsters but then much infantry in warhammer is not normal either. Cavalry tends to be best against broken or badly trained soliders...........

 Mr Morden wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eh, steadfast is ok, imo.

It just needs a few counters, like cavalry. Because you know, disrupting ranked infantry is kind of their job.

.Actually from what I read, most cavalry in all historical eras don't charge ranked disiplined troops - as they loose - now given that some cavalry in warhammer is not normal but monsters but then much infantry in warhammer is not normal either. Cavalry tends to be best against broken or badly trained soliders...........

Damn, I must have been thinking of the broken variety.

Yeah, historically speaking, the role of cavalry is often oversold. In reality, cavalry have traditionally only ever been good against other cavalry, and have been good at running down broken units and turning disorganized retreats into annihilating routs.

It's the speed of the cavalry (being able to apply just that little bit more pressure at the exact right spot - highly mobile way to achieve local force superiority), rather than the hard-hitting nature of cavalry that made them worth anything on the battlefield.

I mean, I think a unit of cavalry only ever broke a musket square like once in the entire Napoleonic war, and I bet you could count on one hand the number of times that cavalry managed to break open a well-formed tercio.

Not that that has anything to do with a fantasy game per se, but thought I'd chip that in. Cavalry are "supposed" to be much more like empire outriders than bretonnian knights, at least, as far as their battlefield role has traditionally been.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, historically speaking, the role of cavalry is often oversold. In reality, cavalry have traditionally only ever been good against other cavalry, and have been good at running down broken units and turning disorganized retreats into annihilating routs.

It's the speed of the cavalry (being able to apply just that little bit more pressure at the exact right spot - highly mobile way to achieve local force superiority), rather than the hard-hitting nature of cavalry that made them worth anything on the battlefield.

I mean, I think a unit of cavalry only ever broke a musket square like once in the entire Napoleonic war, and I bet you could count on one hand the number of times that cavalry managed to break open a well-formed tercio.

Not that that has anything to do with a fantasy game per se, but thought I'd chip that in. Cavalry are "supposed" to be much more like empire outriders than bretonnian knights, at least, as far as their battlefield role has traditionally been.

Ok then, what would have been the line breakers?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Evertras wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
I don't play fantasy much as I started in 7th and only had a few games but here goes.

I don't like how init doesn't really matter anymore. I see a LOT of hordes & since you get full step ups init doesn't seem important & great weapons are rampant.

Possible fix: 1st 2 ranks can always fight but no step ups. as in if 10 guys get slaughtered too bad.

stubborn if you outnumber your enemy

Possible fix: Cavalry ignore this rule. This has made cavalry useless as a cavalry charge can win combay by 5, but oh look we outnumber you so stubborn, here's our general so Ld10, oh & BSB so rerolls. Cavalry just don't feel like the line breakers I imagine them to be.

Ugh no, I would never go back to No Step Up again to allow Combat Characters to beat out 5-7 rank units. I don't want to NEED a 10 rank horde to potentially survive.

Definitely agree, Step Up was a huge improvement. 7th makes subpar infantry exponentially worse because they won't even get to use their crappy attack in the first place. Initiative becomes more important for smaller units vs smaller units, so Steadfast might be the real culprit if anything. Just don't get rid of Step Up, I love it even with my I5 army.

Yeah, that rule in seventh was terrible. It basically gave high ini units the advantage.

If your low ini unit got the charge they got to go first. Subsequent rounds played out the way they do now though.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Magic is a bit silly in 8th. There should be a limit to the number of dispel dice/ power dice, like "a wizard can use up to the same number of dice as one more than his casting level. For example, a lv4 wizard may use up to 5 dice with casting or dispelling." At the moment, it's possible to have a cheap lvl1 wizard commit suicide by rolling a bunch of dice and firing off one of the unit killer spells.

I thought it was really strange they removed that from the game. The "your level +1" dice limit you describe was exactly how it worked in 7th. Though no specific wizard did the dispelling back then.

I thought it was really strange they removed that from the game. The "your level +1" dice limit you describe was exactly how it worked in 7th. Though no specific wizard did the dispelling back then.

With the exception of Dark Elves..Which reminded me why I hated magic in general in 7th, along with Vampire Counts which were very popular armies.

Magic really needs a stabilizer in 9th to say the least. Something where an army can't break it.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Ok then, what would have been the line breakers?

Ever since gustavus adolphus - cannons. You brutalized a part of the line and then casually walked some infantry or cavalry into the pulpified weak spot you created. Before then, it was still shooting, except it was archers. I mean, look at the battle of Hastings. That was an entire day of cavalry pointlessly charging into a shield wall and getting knocked back every time. Meanwhile, over that same period of time, the norman archers were slowly grinding down the saxon wall, eventually perforating the front line and killing the king and a bunch of generals. Once the saxons, leaderless and low in numbers thanks to shooting attacks were stressed to the point of breaking, only then did the knights start to be able to break through.

Once again, we're talking about a fantasy game, not real warfare, but if you wanted to make the former look like the latter, then the best strategy would be for archers to seriously weaken a unit and then have knights crash into them, and while the knights are attacking the first unit, then the archers shift fire to weaken up the next unit for the knights to charge after they're done with the first one.

I don't know how steadfast works (still haven't really read the rules), but I'm under the impression that it works worse once huge units start taking a bunch of casualties. Maybe the problem here isn't that knights are too weak against hordes, but that knight players are pointlessly rushing knights into huge blocks of unhurt infantry (something they shouldn't win anyways), rather than taking precautions and weakening their targets first.

I mean, bretonnians get knights, but they also get archers too...

Steadfast basically works like this. If you have more Ranks than the enemy your unit is Stubborn. So you don't take that Ld modifier to your Ld test for losing combat.

And because combat in fantasy tends to be won or lost by large amounts the difference between Steadfast and not having it can often be the difference between a Ld9 test or hoping for snake eyes. Especially since you will almost always be in range for the General's Ld and a reroll from the BSB.


And unfortunately, BS based shooting is really lame in fantasy because of all the modifiers it suffers. Over half range, soft cover, hard cover, stand and shoot, multiple shots, etc...

Even a BS4 model will often be needing 5s and 6s in the best case scenario. And there isn't enough volume of fire to make up for it either, and range is too short as well.

The only shooting that is viable is anything that doesn't use BS(like cannons) or is able to ignore some of the modifiers.

 Ailaros wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Ok then, what would have been the line breakers?

Ever since gustavus adolphus - cannons. You brutalized a part of the line and then casually walked some infantry or cavalry into the pulpified weak spot you created. Before then, it was still shooting, except it was archers. I mean, look at the battle of Hastings. That was an entire day of cavalry pointlessly charging into a shield wall and getting knocked back every time. Meanwhile, over that same period of time, the norman archers were slowly grinding down the saxon wall, eventually perforating the front line and killing the king and a bunch of generals. Once the saxons, leaderless and low in numbers thanks to shooting attacks were stressed to the point of breaking, only then did the knights start to be able to break through.

Once again, we're talking about a fantasy game, not real warfare, but if you wanted to make the former look like the latter, then the best strategy would be for archers to seriously weaken a unit and then have knights crash into them, and while the knights are attacking the first unit, then the archers shift fire to weaken up the next unit for the knights to charge after they're done with the first one.

I don't know how steadfast works (still haven't really read the rules), but I'm under the impression that it works worse once huge units start taking a bunch of casualties. Maybe the problem here isn't that knights are too weak against hordes, but that knight players are pointlessly rushing knights into huge blocks of unhurt infantry (something they shouldn't win anyways), rather than taking precautions and weakening their targets first.

I mean, bretonnians get knights, but they also get archers too...

Steadfast basically means that a unit in CC becomes stubborn if it has more ranks than the enemy.

This makes hoards very, very hard to remove, because they will usually be accompagned by a high ld character or a general nearby, and possibly a BsB to boot. Shooting won't remove enough of them fast enough, and not everyone has access to pie plates.

Ever since gustavus adolphus - cannons. You brutalized a part of the line and then casually walked some infantry or cavalry into the pulpified weak spot you created. Before then, it was still shooting, except it was archers. I mean, look at the battle of Hastings. That was an entire day of cavalry pointlessly charging into a shield wall and getting knocked back every time. Meanwhile, over that same period of time, the norman archers were slowly grinding down the saxon wall, eventually perforating the front line and killing the king and a bunch of generals. Once the saxons, leaderless and low in numbers thanks to shooting attacks were stressed to the point of breaking, only then did the knights start to be able to break through.

Once again, we're talking about a fantasy game, not real warfare, but if you wanted to make the former look like the latter, then the best strategy would be for archers to seriously weaken a unit and then have knights crash into them, and while the knights are attacking the first unit, then the archers shift fire to weaken up the next unit for the knights to charge after they're done with the first one.

I don't know how steadfast works (still haven't really read the rules), but I'm under the impression that it works worse once huge units start taking a bunch of casualties. Maybe the problem here isn't that knights are too weak against hordes, but that knight players are pointlessly rushing knights into huge blocks of unhurt infantry (something they shouldn't win anyways), rather than taking precautions and weakening their targets first.

I mean, bretonnians get knights, but they also get archers too...

Indeed and if you did not have decent missile support - your inftantry needed to be better than his infantry - for instance Roman infantry had no real fear of Cavalry whilst it was in good order - even Pathian Cataphrats needed to have the Roman infantry worn down by the archery first.

Off hand I can't think of any battles where Cavalry destroyed properely formed infantry on its own? Then again something like Cold One Cavalry tearing into a formed unit of say swordsmen would be something else..................

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I thought it was really strange they removed that from the game. The "your level +1" dice limit you describe was exactly how it worked in 7th. Though no specific wizard did the dispelling back then.

With the exception of Dark Elves..Which reminded me why I hated magic in general in 7th, along with Vampire Counts which were very popular armies.

Magic really needs a stabilizer in 9th to say the least. Something where an army can't break it.

Yeah several books really broke the core rules of the game. We stopped playing before those books came out though. This led to me being really confused by all the anti-7th sentiments when I first started posting here.

Ugh, 7th ed Vampires were the worse. Too much spam >.<

And skaven with their super powerful never failing guns.

Okay. I'm certainly well-versed with what the difference between stubborn/fearless vs. not in 40k. That said, stubborn doesn't stop the units from dying it just stops them from breaking (most of the time). Also, if the BSB or general is so big of a deal, then why can't people handle those units first? I mean, when I play guard people certainly shoot at my commissars and standard bearers first.

Plus, there's also a bit of a balance thing here as well, regardless of historical accuracy. In this case, you'd be wanting to have a rock-paper-scissors game where cannons (and archers, etc.) beat infantry, infantry beats cavalry, and cavalry beats cannons. If you take cavalry, who have the speed and maneuverability to get into a gunline and mess it up, AND the killing power to just run over large blocks of infantry, then the game would pretty quickly devolve into merely who had the best knights.

It can be tough to snipe out the General and BSB however. The general is probably a big nasty melee powerhouse or is insanely durable(or both) and the BSB won't be lacking protection either.

Characters get a LoS roll against artillery so it is hard to snipe them out first.

Not everyone has the ability to snipe out characters effectively either.

There's like 4 armies that can take cannons.

The only thing most people would have access to would be Death magic snipe spells, and those are variable in their effectiveness because its based on Ld. And Wizards tend to have lower Ld than the combat characters they are trying to fry.

 D6Damager wrote:
The only thing making 8th edition "bad" is the cost of entry for new players. Sure, WoC and Ogres can get in with less expensive armies at a comparable cost to 40K, but good luck if you are interested in Skaven, Orcs & Goblins, or Vampire Counts etc.

I really think the price to build an army is what is keeping new blood from taking the plunge and causing veterans to pass when their armies get redone or there is a new rule edition and they need to readjust and buy more variety.
The new Dark Elves drive this point home with the new Witch Elves box at $60 for 10 core troops. $180-$240 just to get 1 playable unit that is maybe 1/6th of your total army points is really pushing the wallet hard despite the fact they are fantastic models.

When you can start for less than $100-$150 armies in Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, Dystopian Wars etc. Its not hard to see why younger gamers and college students are not playing this game like back in the day.

Fewer new people is what hits the hobby hardest.

I always disagree with this. the idea that the start up cost is too high.
Just play lower points to start with.
Most bttallion boxes will get you about 500pts. there are many ways to start at that same $150 price range
You as the player set the rules and how you play. Find someone interested and start small, the plastic crack will do the rest.
there is a thread around here that shows average cost for most armies and 2000pts runs about $300-$400US. You just have to invest if you want the fanciest of toys, but that applies to everything.
The other games...well no accounting for taste, but they aren't that much cheaper if at all.

The people that complained about it.

 Peasant wrote:

 D6Damager wrote:
The only thing making 8th edition "bad" is the cost of entry for new players. Sure, WoC and Ogres can get in with less expensive armies at a comparable cost to 40K, but good luck if you are interested in Skaven, Orcs & Goblins, or Vampire Counts etc.

I really think the price to build an army is what is keeping new blood from taking the plunge and causing veterans to pass when their armies get redone or there is a new rule edition and they need to readjust and buy more variety.
The new Dark Elves drive this point home with the new Witch Elves box at $60 for 10 core troops. $180-$240 just to get 1 playable unit that is maybe 1/6th of your total army points is really pushing the wallet hard despite the fact they are fantastic models.

When you can start for less than $100-$150 armies in Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, Dystopian Wars etc. Its not hard to see why younger gamers and college students are not playing this game like back in the day.

Fewer new people is what hits the hobby hardest.

I always disagree with this. the idea that the start up cost is too high.
Just play lower points to start with.
Most bttallion boxes will get you about 500pts. there are many ways to start at that same $150 price range
You as the player set the rules and how you play. Find someone interested and start small, the plastic crack will do the rest.
there is a thread around here that shows average cost for most armies and 2000pts runs about $300-$400US. You just have to invest if you want the fanciest of toys, but that applies to everything.
The other games...well no accounting for taste, but they aren't that much cheaper if at all.

Or Ebay. That usually works.

Or play with historical miniatures, only really works with Brets, Empire, (tall) Dwarfs really ... but very much worth it
Other than that, Ebay/friends' old armies indeed

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, historically speaking, the role of cavalry is often oversold. In reality, cavalry have traditionally only ever been good against other cavalry, and have been good at running down broken units and turning disorganized retreats into annihilating routs.

It's the speed of the cavalry (being able to apply just that little bit more pressure at the exact right spot - highly mobile way to achieve local force superiority), rather than the hard-hitting nature of cavalry that made them worth anything on the battlefield.

I mean, I think a unit of cavalry only ever broke a musket square like once in the entire Napoleonic war, and I bet you could count on one hand the number of times that cavalry managed to break open a well-formed tercio.

Not that that has anything to do with a fantasy game per se, but thought I'd chip that in. Cavalry are "supposed" to be much more like empire outriders than bretonnian knights, at least, as far as their battlefield role has traditionally been.

Not so. Just for an example - the Polish Hussars (or Winged Lancers) were most definitely used as line breakers. From Wikipedia:

With the Battle of Lubiszew in 1577 the 'Golden Age' of the husaria began. Between then and the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the hussars fought many actions against several enemies, most of which they won.
In the battles of Lubiszew in 1577, Byczyna (1588), Kokenhausen (1601), Kircholm (1605), Kłuszyn (1610), Chocim (1621), Martynów (1624), Trzciana (1629), Ochmatów (1644), Beresteczko (1651), Połonka (1660), Cudnów (1660), Chocim (1673), and Lwów (1675), Vienna (1683), Párkány (1683) the Polish-Lithuanian hussars proved to be the decisive factor often against overwhelming odds. For instance, in the Battle of Kluszyn during the Polish-Muscovite War the Russians outnumbered the Commonwealth army 5 to 1, yet were heavily defeated. During the Khmelnytsky Uprising (Battle of Zhovti Vody, 1648), the Polish army of 1500 and containing less than 200 hussars defended against 11000 man strong army of Khmelnytsky due to heroic defence work of the hussars.

Of course, with the invention and refinement of firearms the battlefield role of cavalry changed to more of a scouting role- as you say more like that of Empire Outriders - but Cavalry have definitely been used with great success as shock troops.
The Warhammer world is a little schizophrenic with regard to technology, with firearms, bows, trebuchets, bows and savage orcs hitting things with pointy rocks tied to sticks so it'd be hard to give cavalry a single definitive role in the game.
I think an elegant rule would be to make troops lose steadfast if they're charged in the flank/rear while already engaged with the foe- the sudden appearance of another foe could rattle anyone- no matter if they are numerically superior. This would play well to cavalry's maneuverability and still make a head on charge a bad idea.

You've also got your account of Hastings a bit mixed up, at least as far as I've read. Harold's shield wall was pretty much proof against archery. It was when the Normans adopted the tactics of feigning flight, which is to say pretending to runaway to draw the Saxons out of their shield wall, that they started having any real effect - the death of Harold being the turning point in the battle.


Az

Aben Zin wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, historically speaking, the role of cavalry is often oversold. In reality, cavalry have traditionally only ever been good against other cavalry, and have been good at running down broken units and turning disorganized retreats into annihilating routs.

It's the speed of the cavalry (being able to apply just that little bit more pressure at the exact right spot - highly mobile way to achieve local force superiority), rather than the hard-hitting nature of cavalry that made them worth anything on the battlefield.

I mean, I think a unit of cavalry only ever broke a musket square like once in the entire Napoleonic war, and I bet you could count on one hand the number of times that cavalry managed to break open a well-formed tercio.

Not that that has anything to do with a fantasy game per se, but thought I'd chip that in. Cavalry are "supposed" to be much more like empire outriders than bretonnian knights, at least, as far as their battlefield role has traditionally been.

Not so. Just for an example - the Polish Hussars (or Winged Lancers) were most definitely used as line breakers. From Wikipedia:

With the Battle of Lubiszew in 1577 the 'Golden Age' of the husaria began. Between then and the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the hussars fought many actions against several enemies, most of which they won.
In the battles of Lubiszew in 1577, Byczyna (1588), Kokenhausen (1601), Kircholm (1605), Kłuszyn (1610), Chocim (1621), Martynów (1624), Trzciana (1629), Ochmatów (1644), Beresteczko (1651), Połonka (1660), Cudnów (1660), Chocim (1673), and Lwów (1675), Vienna (1683), Párkány (1683) the Polish-Lithuanian hussars proved to be the decisive factor often against overwhelming odds. For instance, in the Battle of Kluszyn during the Polish-Muscovite War the Russians outnumbered the Commonwealth army 5 to 1, yet were heavily defeated. During the Khmelnytsky Uprising (Battle of Zhovti Vody, 1648), the Polish army of 1500 and containing less than 200 hussars defended against 11000 man strong army of Khmelnytsky due to heroic defence work of the hussars.

Of course, with the invention and refinement of firearms the battlefield role of cavalry changed to more of a scouting role- as you say more like that of Empire Outriders - but Cavalry have definitely been used with great success as shock troops.
The Warhammer world is a little schizophrenic with regard to technology, with firearms, bows, trebuchets, bows and savage orcs hitting things with pointy rocks tied to sticks so it'd be hard to give cavalry a single definitive role in the game.
I think an elegant rule would be to make troops lose steadfast if they're charged in the flank/rear while already engaged with the foe- the sudden appearance of another foe could rattle anyone- no matter if they are numerically superior. This would play well to cavalry's maneuverability and still make a head on charge a bad idea.

You've also got your account of Hastings a bit mixed up, at least as far as I've read. Harold's shield wall was pretty much proof against archery. It was when the Normans adopted the tactics of feigning flight, which is to say pretending to runaway to draw the Saxons out of their shield wall, that they started having any real effect - the death of Harold being the turning point in the battle.


Az

I knew I had it right...wasn't entirely sure though. It's been a while since I dabbled in medieval tactics.

I like the flanking idea. That sort of hammer and anvil tactic plays to cavalry's strength quite nicely.

Overall I really like 8th.


The few things about it that make me sigh are:

Spell 6 power level is a bit over the top.

I think Steadfast has some issues.

Cavalry really need a shot in the arm.

Army books going from many magic items, to 10-12 or so.


Other than that, great edition, lots of fun.

Yeah, be careful of what you read on wikipedia.

For example, the battle of Pitchen (Byczyna) was decided because infantry outflanked the austrians, and the multilingual nature of the austrian army caused chaos and the collapse of command. All the hussars did was (surprise surprise) launch pointless headlong charges against the infantry, and it wasn't until they decided to fight the other cavalry that they actually did anything. Then, once the enemy was retreating, the cavalry turned the retreat into a rout.

Not being good against mass infantry, but being useful against cavalry and turning retreats into routs being the exact thesis described above. Doing a quick skim of those other battles, none of them were decided by a giant pile of cavalry charging headlong into well-formed ranks of infantry*.

Because it just didn't work that way. Nor should it work that way in fantasy, for both game balance and realism reasons, I mean, if infantry were mowed down by cannons and wizards and massed stone throwers, and they couldn't even tarpit fast units, then there really wouldn't be any point to infantry in this game. Everything would beat them, and they would just die.

That situation exists in 40k, which is why most people spend the bare minimum on troops choices (unless they're one of the rare ones that's good in their own right), and that's in a game that's ostensibly about objectives.



* Even the battle of kircholm was caused by cavalry charging infantry on three flanks after they had already panicked, ironically, because friendly cavalry were charging through them in their haste to flee.