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.

wildger wrote:I field Ogre Kingdom. Even a 4x6 table will not be enough for a 10 wide unit. If you feel that WHFB does not have a balance issue, take OK for a change.

Maybe 40mm bases will count as two models so their ranks 'only' have to be five models wide. Maybe rank bonuses will be tied to 'unit strength' (I think that's the name of the game mechanic). A rank must have a unit strength of 10 to count (typically 10 man sized models).

10 wide would be insanity. Almost impossible to get rank bonuses at that point, and all the advantage is to active combat resolution. Dwarf warriors, empire blocks, goblins, orcs don't even need to bother showing up. I normally hate hyperbole like that, but seriously, I'd need to drop 475 points on 40 dwarf warriors to get a full 3 extra ranks and full command. They can hardly win combat now as it is, to say nothing of fighting on a 10 wide frontage.

Too drastic a change for me to believe.

RZ

Maybe we're missing a second part of the change that makes the ten-wide units reasonable. All the rumors are pointing towards making infantry more useful in combat.

At least 10-wide units would look historically accurate.

JohnHwangDD wrote:At least 10-wide units would look historically accurate.

Yes, the first thing I will think of when I see a unit of skaven or daemons 10 wide is "oh my, that looks historically accurate".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scottywan82 wrote:Maybe we're missing a second part of the change that makes the ten-wide units reasonable. All the rumors are pointing towards making infantry more useful in combat.

and also I think a substantial reduction in points for troops and a move away (once again) from the strength and power of individual characters. Otherwise it makes no sense to do so.

If this is the case, for all the moaning, I will like to see huge blocks of troops move around the table. Blocks of spearmen, skeletons would look great. Maybe it will only apply to certain troops types.

RiTides wrote:

Reecius wrote:I could be wrong, but I know as a Wood Elf player, if I see Daemons across from me, it will take a miracle to pull off victory. Any other army I do fine with.

Yes, but as a wood elf player, aren't you worried about blocks of troops getting stronger, when we rely on hit-and-run tactics with skirmishing or light units, rather than on models fighting in blocks/ranks?

I know it worries me as a woodie... I'm just curious why you would think this would help balance the game out for the army that you (and I) play!

After the epic level arse kicking I got at the Adepticon Fantasy tournament I don't think I should be giving any advice!

Haha, I won my first game against Dwarves by a large margin, which put me into the Daemon category. I got obliterated then got to play Fateweaver plus 12 flamer Daemons and got obliterated again! Woodies just get the uber pwnage against Daemons, at least when I am playing them they do. I can beat any other army, but Daemons just destroy me with disgusting ease.

But enough of the rant.

If what I was told is correct, Blocks of Infantry will be 10 wide and fight 2 deep, so getting the charge will be HUGE. We don't know what other rules will be in place to supplement this (or even if it is true) but as a Woodie specifically, I think it means it will be easier to out maneuver the other guy as they will have less units that are bigger and harder to move. So Woodies should have an easier time of it, at least that is what I think knowing what we know now.

Alpharius wrote:

Shep wrote:You guys understand that the models aren't getting cheaper in points right?

Moving to ten wide just means that there will be half as many units on the table, not twice as many models...

Remember when 40K went from 2nd edition to 3rd?

And the points for a Space Marine Tac Squad trooper was basically cut in half?

I can see GW doing something like this here as well, 'forcing' us to buy more troops.... 'for the good of the game' (and GW's bottom line!).

So what would happen to all the point costs in the current army books, most of which will not be updated for a while? I don't think it is a realistic option for them to mess too much with individual point costs.

40k had another troop cheapening revision going from fourth to fifth edition without rebooting the codices. Fantasy could do the same thing.

spacewolflord wrote:My friends and I have never had balance issues with the game it self. It always comes down to list constrution and tatics. I am personal leary of all the new changes that have been talked about.

So you play Dark Elves, Skaven, Undead or deamons?

I personally hope the game changes completely.... its just terrible now, psychology is a joke with every other army being immune, shooting is underpowered with all the negatives for moving, over half, wearing a cotton shirt etc... just let stuff hit with its ballistic skill like 40k already..
Heavy cav sucks compared to what i should be, like a 3d impact hits each rider and line of sight has always been screwed up, nobody can turn their heads in that game.

Complete overhaul please or I'll continue to sell off my armies.

Oh yeah and for the poster, 10 wide and more infantry may sound cooler until you find out that your old army is now garbage and you need to by about 50 more troops per phalanx. GW never releases a new set of rules with out having an interest in making people buy stuff, good rules have always been an afterthought, 10 wide means more sales, you will never see 10 night goblins fighting 1 chaos warrior as you would in real life always rank to rank... with that system the true effect of outnumbering never comes into play.

I truly hope the game gets better as I like the theme...

I hear you, IG88. I just don't like playing Fantasy much right now because of the imbalance.

I play Woodies so the rank thing means nothing to me. I could see how it would be really annoying though to have to buy new movement trays and new models to make legal units.

I hope the game improves because right now I honestly don't like it even half as much as 40K.

Almost all wood elf armies are going to get destroyed by daemons, though, Reecius- it's nothing on you! Ward saves that don't work against magical attacks and all that...

Thanks for the insights, though! I've been worried about not having blocks if they are emphasized in the new rules, but I'm sure we'll get by like we always do (outmaneuver, multi-charge, etc...)

This is why I now stay away from the internet on April Fool's Day.

Almost all wood elf armies are going to get destroyed by daemons

One can only hope.

IG88 wrote:

spacewolflord wrote:My friends and I have never had balance issues with the game it self. It always comes down to list constrution and tatics. I am personal leary of all the new changes that have been talked about.

So you play Dark Elves, Skaven, Undead or deamons?

I personally hope the game changes completely.... its just terrible now, psychology is a joke with every other army being immune, shooting is underpowered with all the negatives for moving, over half, wearing a cotton shirt etc... just let stuff hit with its ballistic skill like 40k already..
Heavy cav sucks compared to what i should be, like a 3d impact hits each rider and line of sight has always been screwed up, nobody can turn their heads in that game.

Complete overhaul please or I'll continue to sell off my armies.

Oh yeah and for the poster, 10 wide and more infantry may sound cooler until you find out that your old army is now garbage and you need to by about 50 more troops per phalanx. GW never releases a new set of rules with out having an interest in making people buy stuff, good rules have always been an afterthought, 10 wide means more sales, you will never see 10 night goblins fighting 1 chaos warrior as you would in real life always rank to rank... with that system the true effect of outnumbering never comes into play.

I truly hope the game gets better as I like the theme...

So you just want to simplify things? Many people play this game because its requires more thought than 40K, and its not as easy to play. If you want simplification, then go play 40k. 40K is generally Fantasy simplified.

-----

I cannot imagine the 10 wide for a rank bonus ever happening. That would be a nightmare for EVERY army. It would up the costs of armies, since you would have to buy more figures to have an effective unit.

Karon wrote:40K is generally Fantasy, but vastly improved in every way possible

FYP.

Karon wrote:
So you just want to simplify things? Many people play this game because its requires more thought than 40K, and its not as easy to play. If you want simplification, then go play 40k. 40K is generally Fantasy simplified.

I humbly disagree. 40k is probably 70% playing, 20% list, 10% luck. Fantasy is probably 30% playing, 60% list, 10% luck. Why?

1. Fantasy is about VP denial/gain. This can be gamed by list.
2. Certain builds are tremendously broke and there are some very unfavorable codex match ups.

I can normally walk up to a Fantasy table before the game, look at the armies and be pretty spot on with the outcome. In 40k, it is much harder to do that.

Adjust combat to enable more models to get into combat. Something like each ensuing round of combat enables certain ranks to make 1 attack.

Round 2 Combat - Rank 2 may fight
Round 3 Combat - Rank 3 may fight ...etc.

I'd just like Combat between block units to be nastier.

Tweak up Magic. Not sure how since this could dramatically hinder certain armies, namely VC. It does seem broke though since its a huge points sink to get a great magic defense while its easy to spam power dice.

Cavalry cause 1 impact per mount at base strength of mount, +1 strength if barded. Chariots still get D6, +1 scythed wheels, and maybe +1 per mount?

Shooting. Seems like rank and file missile troops get annihilated very easily without dishing it out. Maybe just tone down on the all the -1 "To Hit" modifiers. If anything let an additional rank of a missile unit fire INDIRECTLY at a target unit at an additional -1 to hit.

We've been told the latest updates/army books are compatible with 8th Edition - so Skaven and Beastmen should hold true if this is the case.

Look at their basic troop choice and see if this holds water.

@RitTides
I hear you, and i totally agree. I just don't see how to win against them. The odds are so stacked against us.

So you just want to simplify things? Many people play this game because its requires more thought than 40K, and its not as easy to play. If you want simplification, then go play 40k. 40K is generally Fantasy simplified.

Why do people say this? There is NO basis for this statement. I play both games and find it to be the other way around. 40K is so much more dynamic and complex. Fantasy you set up, move forward, and the guy with better list and luck wins. There is more variability in Fantasy because of the all important moral test, which some armies just ignore, or throwing only 5 dice in a combat which easily can vary widely from the average.

40K has so much more maneuver, and forward thinking, plus with the higher number of dice thrown, it comes closer to averages meaning in most cases you rely less on luck.

Plus, and I don't think anyone can counter this, the balance in Fantasy is a major issue, much more so than in 40K. Look at tournament results in Fantasy, they are dominated by the big 3.

Now of course everyone is entitles to their opinions, but as for me, I feel that being good at 40K is just as, if not more difficult than in Fantasy.

As a good friend of mine said that plays both systems avidly, Fantasy is more about strategy (list, army and set up) whereas 40K is more about tactics (unit decision on a per turn basis). I prefer the later and think it is the more difficult game to master, but that is my opinion.

Interesting rumour, not untirely unbelievable, although a big change.

I assume that would not only get us buying more models (*cue GW execs dancng in the background*) but it would also help make Troops have a bigger advantage against the elite units. As it won't be as viable to have them running around with four ranks anymore.

Just thinking on those lines, as GW does seem to want to reign in elite squads all the time, but haven't as yet found a good way of doing it.

Wow, if this rumor is true, then I'm going to start running 10 x 3 units of Saurus Warriors with Spears. That would be quite a wall.

JohnHwangDD wrote:At least 10-wide units would look historically accurate.

Not in a world where regiments are 20-30 warriors and battlefields are 48-72".
BTW what is the historically correct army formation for daemons and bipedal rats and lizards?

OT:

MDS - I can't figure out what is creeping me out more about your Avatar - that it is just creepy in and of itself or if that is actually a guy . . .

Uriels_Flame wrote:OT:

MDS - I can't figure out what is creeping me out more about your Avatar - that it is just creepy in and of itself or if that is actually a guy . . .

That is Daffney from TNA wrestling I think.

"Infantry will fight 2 deep" - "10 wide ranks"

So a unit of Chaos Warriors with the Mark of Khorne with double hand weapons on the charge will get 81 attacks at WS 6? Despite the wargasm, it's a bit excessive.

I personally can't see this happening. I've played for a long time and this just seems too extreme of a change. I can see them trying to change the game to sell more minis and books. I can see them going back to percentages and even allowing "allies" and such. But just mushing your 2 20 man units together won't sell heaps of stuff. They expanded the frontages before by one and it made enough sense esthetically, but doubling it?

I think someone at GW is having a laugh by dropping crazy rumours.

I have been on the fence for months now about leaving fantasy. If this 10 model wide rule comes about it will tip the scale toward me ebaying everything.

FlammingGaunt wrote:I think 10 man wide is a too much. Though i'd like to see magic buffed a tad.

Magic buffed! Are you serious man. Must have never played against a 24 power dice daemon list. Anyways Ill beleave it when I see it with the ranks haveing to be 10 wide to get a rank bonues. That would totaly nerf Skaven so I doubt that will happen. The idea is to buff infantry not debuff them more!! Myabe running ten wide will add more res to the ranks you already have, perhaps doubleing rank bonus's. Have to wait and see though.

This is starting to flail around fairly wildly...

But how much of this is substantiated (ha!) and how much of it is idle speculation and/or fear mongering?

It might be time for this to move on over to Fantasy General Discussions...

Any clue on the starter set yet?

Lord of battles wrote:Any clue on the starter set yet?

There seemed to have been confirmations of HE vs. Skaven.