Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hulksmash wrote:Dear god people will have to bring regiments of infantry!

Oh hey, none of my infantry regiments is fielded below 24 and I've entertained several lists with nothing under 30-big, with some games including 40-big regiments. Yep, I'm definitely afraid of the scary large units. Can't comprehend units larger than 20.

Hulksmash wrote:The more stuff comes out the more I like. They've debunked some of the weirder stuff (magic weapons in the woods) and confirmed some others.

Did I miss something in the updates? Last I looked, magic item in woods is still plausible. Not exactly desired or supported, but plausible.

Hulksmash wrote:In fact I'm seeing a whole new game where people need to field regiments of troops and calvary and use them wisely instead of 3-4 units and monstrous creatures/character mounted monsters. Ahhhhhhhh. So happy

Whilst it's good to see a discouragement to everyone (who could) fielding such lists, I pity you if that's all you see at your GW. Barring EotG Circus', most people in my GW don't field monsters in anything approaching "cheesy" numbers.

Hulksmash wrote:Orcs are cheap enough that they can still be stubborn too.

You don't win by getting slaughtered longer. Orcs, whilst stubborn might make it harder for them to break (assuming a general slapped in the unit becomes stubborn too), aren't going to be breaking anything barring perhaps an Orc unit containing a BSB & Lord (since you can then arguably get two I4 - or if Night Goblins I5 - models). The orcs can hold now, but they aren't going to do much.

Hulksmash wrote:And it looks like Dwarves are gonna be immune to the no-marching thing in heavy armor. And dwarves cost to much to abuse the stubborn thing to much. 9pts starting is a big point sink since you'll need 25-30 to make sure you stay stubborn.

Actually, you only need a rank or two eight wide in order to get Stubborn - going for Stubborn Dwarves you are looking to tie them up through a wide front instead of a bunch of static combat.

The abuse of the rule comes not from taking blocks 35 big, but by taking units 10 or 15 big stretched out in lines with no intent of static combat resolution.

Sweet.. Time to take huge blocks of saurus and watch them never run if theyre stubborn

Kirasu wrote:Sweet.. Time to take huge blocks of saurus and watch them never run if theyre stubborn

Especially if within the BSB's range.

Though the "immune to panic" rumor has me dreading something: Might it also mean that conferring leadership to models within 12" is going to go the way of the dodo? Think about it, if immune to panic within 12" of the general GW might decide "That's good enough" and remove the general's leadership-passing ability. If so, this could be bad for either stupid troops (Chaos / Regular Trolls would probably never be used again) or for low-leadership units who rely on the general for staying-power in combat (Night Goblins, Skaven Slaves, and so on).

Gorbad just became very appealing for Orcs, however. Stubborn Leadership 10 with BSB re-roll He ain't going to do any killing, but Orcs are now a poor (and cheap) man's Hammerers now in regards to being displaced.

Piping in on the "random = more fun" debate:

HELL no.

I play Warhammer to get engaged in a tactical game, where strategy and planning are important, where I can outsmart and outplay my opponent. Adding in too many random elements will only demean and devalue the game in my eyes. I already get enough random in my games (just yesterday lost two Chaos Knights to a stand and shoot reaction from DE crossbowmen, and they were Tzeentch Knights with Blasted Standard - cost me the win).

If I want to play a game where the primary strategy is dumb luck, I'll go play the card game War.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:If I want to play a game where the primary strategy is dumb luck, I'll go play the card game War.

But does it have hammers?

Manfred von Drakken wrote:(just yesterday lost two Chaos Knights to a stand and shoot reaction from DE crossbowmen, and they were Tzeentch Knights with Blasted Standard - cost me the win).

Just FYI, Blasted Standard doesn't work vs stand and shoot.

I'm curious to know why people always assume that rolling more dice means there is less skill involved?

In fact, the more dice that are rolled means that the results are likely to be closer to mean values, hence making combat more predictable. For those who want a greater emphasis on tactics, this is a good thing as a judgment call on whether a combat is winable will be less affected by lucky rolling.

Yes but that point is conveniently forgotten Calvin somehow.. Fantasy often comes down to a single LD roll or a dispel roll and while that is climatic.. it is not skillful. I do like to play WFB quite a bit (about 3-4 games a week).. but it is what it is

I'm seriously fascinated and once I get a better look at Magic... I may see a VC army appearing.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:I'm curious to know why people always assume that rolling more dice means there is less skill involved?

In fact, the more dice that are rolled means that the results are likely to be closer to mean values, hence making combat more predictable. For those who want a greater emphasis on tactics, this is a good thing as a judgment call on whether a combat is winable will be less affected by lucky rolling.

This would be true if the new rules were "take 5 leadership tests and then take the mean." Just adding in more random effects to stuff that wasn't random before isn't going to average out a totally un-related test. People are concerned that stuff like random charges are going to decrease the tactical aspect of the game because they are single dice rolls and thus incredibly susceptible to randomness. Since these tests are all unrelated with each other averages doesn't really help. Rolling two 1s on important charges isn't balanced because you rolled box cars on a leadership test since both effects are bad. You have a point regarding more models getting to swing in combat since all of those dice rolls are connected however the problem is that since they are going to a straight initiative system that will really make faster models more effective at statistically coming even and stopping certain units from being able to fight.

Scottywan82 wrote:I'm seriously fascinated and once I get a better look at Magic... I may see a VC army appearing.

I'm curious why since most of these rumors hit VC hard.

1. Fear and terror are now trivial
2. Harsher character cap on an army that revolves around its characters
3. Requirement of troops with banners when those troops are its worst core options
4. Combat being straight initiative based for an army with almost nothing over I3
5. Cool new ways to insta-kill characters
6. Single dice raising is incredible risky due to two failed casts being a miscast and a nastier miscast table
7. Less characters and more units in a 3k game means a lot of stuff either has to clutter around characters (and thus can't capture objectives) or not be able to march

Feels to me that the army is almost too unfun to play unless they do some serious revisions to all the armies books in the 8th BRB.

Sorry, I meant in combat, should have made that clearer in the post.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Sorry, I meant in combat, should have made that clearer in the post.

That's cool and I agree more dice equals a less random result . Just when people are complaining about "randomness" in regards to the rumors it's more stuff like failed charge or new ridiculous miscast where you get hit with large blasts.

Ixquic wrote:

Scottywan82 wrote:I'm seriously fascinated and once I get a better look at Magic... I may see a VC army appearing.

I'm curious why since most of these rumors hit VC hard.

1. Fear and terror are now trivial

Really? I wasn't aware you had an advanced copy of the book. Chill until you see, 'kay?

Ixquic wrote:2. Harsher character cap on an army that revolves around its characters

psst... NO ONE's army revolves around characters anymore. This would be a serious disadvantage, except that everyone has it, which is a good thing. Now my units of Skellies and Wights will slug it out with your infantry. Only I can raise mine from the dead.

Ixquic wrote:3. Requirement of troops with banners when those troops are its worst core options

I actually really like the idea of a skeleton horde... *shrug*

Ixquic wrote:4. Combat being straight initiative based for an army with almost nothing over I3

Once again, please feel free to pdf your advance copy and post it on 4chan.

Ixquic wrote:5. Cool new ways to insta-kill characters

Which there are fewer of and so this isn't going to be as big a deal.

Ixquic wrote:6. Single dice raising is incredible risky due to two failed casts being a miscast and a nastier miscast table

Once again, this is a problem for everyone, not just VC.

Ixquic wrote:7. Less characters and more units in a 3k game means a lot of stuff either has to clutter around characters (and thus can't capture objectives) or not be able to march

Or play a lower points cost game and keep the same amount of units. Just a thought.

Ixquic wrote:Feels to me that the army is almost too unfun to play unless they do some serious revisions to all the armies books in the 8th BRB.

They are. Most of the things you mentioned are changes to all the army books. I'm almost confused about how you're annoyed by the rule changes, but then I cast my mind back to 3rd edition 40K and remember my own bitterness. I think this may be a "forest for the trees" instance.

I dont really like random charge moves either.. imo randomness should be left to "choices" you make as opposed to performing basic functions of the game

such as rolling for difficult terrain in 40k.. It can be quicker than going around.. or might not be, your choice

I think the biggest problem with the rumours is that, as yet, we don't know what bonus (if any) will be provided by charging.

Random movement is a downside but what the upside is we don't know. If it becomes less critical to get the charge than now (for some armies/units its a huge deal) then the risks of failure are correspondingly less.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:I think the biggest problem with the rumours is that, as yet, we don't know what bonus (if any) will be provided by charging.

Random movement is a downside but what the upside is we don't know. If it becomes less critical to get the charge than now (for some armies/units its a huge deal) then the risks of failure are correspondingly less.

I just wanted to quote the voice of reason quickly before it was drowned out.

Wow, I'm going to frame that so that I can show my wife that someone thinks I'm the 'voice of reason'

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Wow, I'm going to frame that so that I can show my wife that someone thinks I'm the 'voice of reason'

On the internet. That just means you're not this guy:



But hey! Go you.

Scottywan82 wrote:stuff.

You're the one that read these rumors and now thinks that a VC army is a good idea. I'd like to know why and asked in a polite manner since it seems to me as a VC player that they are going to have problems. You didn't really answer.

From everything we have heard they are NOT revising army books so I don't need a secret PDF to know what's in the book I currently own and have been playing for years (there's a lot of initiative 1-3 models). In regards to fear and terror we are discussing in context of the current rumors and yes fear sounds like it is getting a huge nerf. No more auto breaking and no leadership tests from fear (which is inconsistent with the other rumor that fear test failure results in loss of combat effectiveness). So it's not clear how much it has been reduced but the result is still going to be a lessening of that ability.

VC is an army that is built on crappy troops and revolves around characters. It needs these characters to function as it can't even march without them. In addition if the general dies the army crumbles so going for cheap heroes isn't an option and an expensive Lord is more or less required. Saying that a percentage based system hits all armies equally is totally incorrect.

VC also revolves around magic more than any army. Their magic phase is entirely build around buffing and moving their units. Saying that the new rules around failure to miscast affect everyone equally when a huge strategy of VC is to repeat cast 50% success rate spells is again incorrect.

In regards to your last two points I have no idea what your argument even is. "Cool new ways to kill characters" aren't just going to be character abilities. When I have LESS heroes in the future and they are easier to kill and my army is dependent on them it's pretty obvious this is a net negative. Also playing smaller games means the percentage for characters is going to be shrunk proportionally so there will be the same problems where your troops will not be able to march without expensive banners or certain rare units to babysit them.

My point isn't that Vampire Counts will be unplayable but just un-fun since a lot of what made the army what it is is being specifically targeted for re-balancing. If you wanted to play the shambling skeletal horde you could do that better now which is why I'm confused by someone that looks at this thread and thinks that NOW is the time to start the army. Claiming that I have no advance foresight to the book is true, but we are in a rumor thread discussing rumors. So in context of the rumors posted on page 1 there will be severe issues with the army and discounting that with the argument that we don't know 100% what is going to happen is pretty pointless.

I'm not going to rage-quit my army to preempt that argument I see coming and if 8th is good I will adapt.

I think it's totally fair for people to be concerned with how new rules will affect their expensive armies that they have spent a lot of time painting and converting. We don't know what benefits random charging, nastier magic phase, crazier miscasts, lessened psychology effects, etc will have on any army but from our current frame of reference it's not in certain armies' favor. If we have to wait until we know everything before we can comment why have a thread at all? Just lock the first post and edit it occasionally when people leak stuff.

+1 CR for charging is the new confirmed change? Is that really it?

You know what, I was writing a reply again, and just realized that I was writing the same words over and over in different forms. It can be summed up as follows:

You haven't read the book, so you don't know. Why not wait before assuming an army will be nerfed? Rumors are almost always slightly but materially inaccurate before a product is released.

I would direct you to things said about the Blood Angels Codex. Even after it was in stores, but not yet released, erroneous information was still being posted alongside messages of doom.

Looking at the rumors now, I am thinking that I need to repaint my Dwarves. (Insert Evil laughter Here).

To counter, why do you assume the changes will be good? You haven't read the book either. I'm on the fence completely myself, but surely you see that your stance is just a mirror of any person with a complaint, and just as rooted in speculation?
They're pessimists, you're an optimist. That's the difference.

It's going to be a big change. I'm gonna hang on to both my main armies, for sure, and will attempt to get back into the game bigtime. Hopefully, it'll end up as good as 5th 40K or better.

Scotty
it's a rumours thread
people discuss the rumours and speculate

has anyone tried play testing the rumours at any stage to see how the potential changes work or otherwise.

Well, I play WOTR.

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.

Disregard that, The Sky Is Falling!!! I would like to see more emphasis on infantry blocks, and core having a purpose... But I'm not so enthused about some of the charge/combat aspects. *please magic before moving*

I prefer strategic games more in the vein of Rome: Total War, where not every unit moves at exactly the same speed every time, and you have to weigh risks of success on a risky charge versus the consequences of failure.

Have not played Rome but why do the units not move the same each time? Is it because the generals are rolling dice or is it because of jealous, fickle gods?

Like someone said
2" to charge you have a 1 in 6 chance of not making it
an element of risk is greater the longer the distance of the charge, so a weighted system would be better. But I don't see that happening.

The amount of tinkering going on indicates a flaw in the design. ie somethings look like they are being added to fix something else that was done.

Hold on here. I don't see anything in the "big list of rumors" that says rolling a 1 for the random distance added to a charge means the charge fails.

(Now if it is like that in the final rules, then it's probably a deal breaker for me and I'm out of the hobby.)

As far as everything else goes - I've never been more excited and at the same time more afraid of a rules change.

The rolling a 1 thing might be an assumption based on the fact that that's how it works for WOTR, however I don't think it's likely given that cavalry roll multiple D6.
It's pretty ganky in WOTR anyway, so I wouldn't miss it if it wasn't in WFB.