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.

Honestly, daemons in 8th are still pretty close. Perhaps not quite what they were in 7th, but still all-out insane. You just need to bring slightly different units than in 7th, but they still wreck face and are undercosted almost across the board, sometimes severely so.

I haven't played much against Daemons, but...that makes sense. Heralds. Bloodletters. And, of course, Flamers. Scary stuff.

@DarkAngelHopeful: well, would you take issue with someone who wants to have fun, versus crushing/being crushed?

I mean, I see what you're saying, but you've got to give less competitive people a break. There are better reasons than those.

I don't play this game to win. I mean, I try to win; I try to build lists that can handle anything, and I try to be a shrewd general.

But I got into Warhammer because of it's primary goal as a source of entertainment: to simulate battles in this fantastic (and comically grim, comically hopeless, and comically over-the-top) setting.

The thread "How many attacks to Saurus w/ spears get" (or something like that), oddly enough, has a more detailed explanation of this view.

The conclusion of it: ideally, Warhammer would be designed in such a way that the best way to play the game would be to play it as it was meant to be played. Armies built like they are in the lore, without weird loopholes or combos. But, unfortunately, it isn't. So the player who leads his army as a general in the Warhammer world would is at a disadvantage to those who find da' good stuff that GW messed up on.

You left out flamers, WarpSolution . And of course, if special/named characters are allowed, it just gets silly...

You are so right, RiTides, that I had to go back and add them in.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:I don't let that definition of cheese bother me. I just try to think of ways around it. As I said before, there is a counter for everything in 8th ed, you just have to look for it.

I also don't build my armies based on fluff. I play to win and I bulid lists that are competative, but I'm not a "WAAC" player as I have seen it defined on here.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a list that is competative/hard and playing to win. I take issue with playing people with bad attitudes or people who get so upset they can't control themselves (i.e. throw dice, cuss, etc) or who are just buttholes.

But I don't have any issue playing against someone who tooled their list to be optimized and who plays hard.

I couldn't agree more. If there is one thing I hate it is a player who brings anything but his best. Thats not to say there is no room for a casual game, but I see no reason to intentionally bring an inferior list. To do so is like telling your opponent 'you're not worth my best effort,' or 'I know you stand little chance against me, so I'll go easy.'

Its hard to get better by winning all the time. Losing on the other hand highlights your every miscalculation and error in judgment. Personally, I value one good butt-kicking much more than a whole day of victory.

-Jim

Warpsolution wrote:I haven't played much against Daemons, but...that makes sense. Heralds. Bloodletters. And, of course, Flamers. Scary stuff.

@DarkAngelHopeful: well, would you take issue with someone who wants to have fun, versus crushing/being crushed?

I mean, I see what you're saying, but you've got to give less competitive people a break. There are better reasons than those.

I don't play this game to win. I mean, I try to win; I try to build lists that can handle anything, and I try to be a shrewd general.

But I got into Warhammer because of it's primary goal as a source of entertainment: to simulate battles in this fantastic (and comically grim, comically hopeless, and comically over-the-top) setting.

The thread "How many attacks to Saurus w/ spears get" (or something like that), oddly enough, has a more detailed explanation of this view.

The conclusion of it: ideally, Warhammer would be designed in such a way that the best way to play the game would be to play it as it was meant to be played. Armies built like they are in the lore, without weird loopholes or combos. But, unfortunately, it isn't. So the player who leads his army as a general in the Warhammer world would is at a disadvantage to those who find da' good stuff that GW messed up on.

When it comes to playing my close friends or setting up a game before hand, then yes, I'm all for a fluff list or a softer list or a friendlier list. I'm totally down with narrative battles as well. But when it comes to tournaments, I can't agree with you.

Also, I'm not trying to start anything with you or anyone. In fact, if we lived in the same area and you got to know me as a player/person, I bet you would like to play against me and I you.

Wood elves are auto win. Your opponent is pretty much guarenteed to beat you if they know what they are doing. Other than that, i see the new Tomb Kings as being the Daemons of 8th. With all the new monsters, thundercrush, and 4 pt soldiers (compared to the 7 pt VC ones). They also have My will be done which will be brutal in a hoard of TK tomb guard with halbreds.

RiTides wrote:Honestly, daemons in 8th are still pretty close. Perhaps not quite what they were in 7th, but still all-out insane. You just need to bring slightly different units than in 7th, but they still wreck face and are undercosted almost across the board, sometimes severely so.

Daemons arent even CLOSE to what they were in 7th edition...

Yes the SC are still incredibly insane for their cost. However their rank and file units are really really squishy. T3 across the board except for plaguebearers....

You run a risk every time you play a GD by running into an army with cannons, which can end the game for you on turn one...

Also good skaven players bend my deamons over... Course what well played skaven doesnt bend one over...


Heres my total view on how I play the game for fun...

If I know going into the tournament its WAAC or bring the pain im all for it, I know what im getting into ahead of time. You will not hear a peep out of me the entire tourny about cheese or hard lists.

If its a softer tourny with comp scores, or a friendly game, and you toss down a ard boyz level list, I will find someone else to play with if its friendly, or happily check off the composition box.

This is coming from someone who about a year ago thought sportsmanship and composition had no place in competitive warhammer.


As for TK, I dont think they are going to be nearly as OTT as people say they are... the sphinxes will still suffer from 8th edition monster syndrome, which is dieing on turn one to cannons. Skeletons even with WS6 are still str3, I will happily charge into elvish spearmen every day of the week and they normally out WS me. Their magic is very very well rounded, but still not as stupid as some of the BRB lores. Should be a very well balanced book. Also crumble hurts...bad... Hit those skeleton blocks with some decent RNF and they will lose 20+ a round.

ShivanAngel wrote:

RiTides wrote:Honestly, daemons in 8th are still pretty close. Perhaps not quite what they were in 7th, but still all-out insane. You just need to bring slightly different units than in 7th, but they still wreck face and are undercosted almost across the board, sometimes severely so.

Daemons arent even CLOSE to what they were in 7th edition...

Yes the SC are still incredibly insane for their cost. However their rank and file units are really really squishy. T3 across the board except for plaguebearers....

You run a risk every time you play a GD by running into an army with cannons, which can end the game for you on turn one...

Also good skaven players bend my deamons over... Course what well played skaven doesnt bend one over...


Heres my total view on how I play the game for fun...

If I know going into the tournament its WAAC or bring the pain im all for it, I know what im getting into ahead of time. You will not hear a peep out of me the entire tourny about cheese or hard lists.

If its a softer tourny with comp scores, or a friendly game, and you toss down a ard boyz level list, I will find someone else to play with if its friendly, or happily check off the composition box.

This is coming from someone who about a year ago thought sportsmanship and composition had no place in competitive warhammer.

I totally respect that point of view. When I go play at the store I tell my opponent, hey, this is a really hard list, do you want to play AB style, or do you want to tone it down. I'm good with either. Lately, all of my games have been AB practice games with the scenarios and my opponents have agreed before hand that they want to do that type of game.

When it's just casual, I leave Teclis at home and do more balanced lists.

Like I said, I have no issue with hard lists, just let me know before we start. usually I am done for a hard game, but sometimes I want to just push little plastic men around the table.

Thats why when I comment on army lists, I will say Teclis fits really well in that list, but build an alternate, cause lots of people will not want to play you in a friendly game if he hits the table.

Oh one thing I left out, that I think is a WAAC, TFG move that should be erratad out...

you should NOT be able to start 3 wide, and reform to keep characters in the second rank... That is just stupid, reforming should have all the rules of normal deployment, champ, music, standard and characters must be place in the front rank.

In my opinion, Empire Gunlines are pretty cheesy. Our ranged troops are both cheap and powerful (for 800 points I can field 100 gunners that can fire 100 str 4 shots... hehe) and lets not forget the Helblaster Volley Gun. To most serious players its a nuicance because of how easy it misfires, but to players like me who can laugh at my own misfortune its one of the funniest weapons in the game. I can safley say that the Empire has one of the best war machine presences in the game (Steam Tank), followed by Skaven and Dwarfs and the other riff raff.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Name another army that can consistently do what you posted,while remaining competitive and ill agree its a decent way to deal with the chosen star, bonus points if you dont use special characters.

Tzeench daemons with a herald and Kairos.
Tzeench daemons with a herald and lord of change.

Indiges wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Name another army that can consistently do what you posted,while remaining competitive and ill agree its a decent way to deal with the chosen star, bonus points if you dont use special characters.

Tzeench daemons with a herald and Kairos.
Tzeench daemons with a herald and lord of change.

Be more specific please, that unit usually has a 2+ ward vs magic, 3+ ward normally, and high enough stats so they are only failing the instant kill spells on 6's.

Yep.

As for the whole "to cheese or not to", I've said it once, and I'll say it again:

A game is properly designed when what is competitive is also what the designers had in mind.
For Warhammer, that means no weird combos, no rules that interact with each other to result in super-awesomeness. I'd say that RaW and RaI would be virtually the same, but White Wolf Games has proven to me that this is not the case.
So, when Leadbelchers are on the same line as the Chosenstar, when Wood Elves are balanced against Skaven, when Power Scrolls are taken about as often as Terrifying Masks of Eee!, I'll say this game is all set.

It's a long-term goal, of course. But for now, I'll do what I can to prove that playing this game as a simulator and as a story-telling device isn't at that big a handicap versus someone of a more competitive mindset.
Part of the conflict that comes from all of this lies in the grey area; some people say this is cheesy, some say it's okay. Me? I don't take a Power Scroll on my Grey Seer, because I want to do something else. But I take a Doomrocket on my Engineer every time because, well, it's just so comically, idiotically good.

You know what the problem is? Ivory Tower Syndrome. What works does not always seem like it will. What looks awesome can quite often be terrible.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Indiges wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Name another army that can consistently do what you posted,while remaining competitive and ill agree its a decent way to deal with the chosen star, bonus points if you dont use special characters.

Tzeench daemons with a herald and Kairos.
Tzeench daemons with a herald and lord of change.

Be more specific please, that unit usually has a 2+ ward vs magic, 3+ ward normally, and high enough stats so they are only failing the instant kill spells on 6's.

Fateweaver: Soul Blight+ Enfebling Foe.
Herald - Dwellers.

Running 4 warsphinx at 3k points.... OUCH!

In combat:
4 Tomb guard killing blow attacks
Thundercrush attack or 4 attacks
Thunderstomp S5
2d6 S4 breath weapon.

Maximum damage: around 42 wounds. lol

ShivanAngel wrote:you should NOT be able to start 3 wide, and reform to keep characters in the second rank... That is just stupid, reforming should have all the rules of normal deployment, champ, music, standard and characters must be place in the front rank.

I totally agree with that. I don't understand how it made it through in the first place, when it would have been so easy to say "Characters must always move to the front rank, except in the following situations:" and then list things like refusing challenges, not enough room, etc.

I suspect that part of GW's rules issue stems from the fact they write in a pretty conversational style, flowing from fluff to rule with but a comma, if we are lucky. I wish they would use more definitive statements, with fluff ahead or behind, and in italics or something.

That has been FAQ'd on pg 8 of the BRB FAQ.

"Q: Must a character be moved to the front rank of a unit as soon as a space becomes available? (p100)
A: Yes."

Infreak wrote:That has been FAQ'd on pg 8 of the BRB FAQ.

"Q: Must a character be moved to the front rank of a unit as soon as a space becomes available? (p100)
A: Yes."

First thought: Either it doesn't say that, or somehow a lot of people have missed it.

Second thought: Updated FAQs!!

It says it was last updated on the 28th of april so updated faq!

Dang, there goes my hidden BSB. Gonna have to start fielding more disposable engineers to fill that front rank. WTB lead from the back Skaven rule.

Not to delve this into a special character debate, but yes there are certain special characters out there that really do make it ALMOST an auto win army. Teclis, Fateweaver, Mannfred (to a certain extent) - they are out there, which is why alot of tournaments and in my opinion friendly play shouldn't include them.

As far as the FAQ and hidden characters - I'm really dissapointed in it actually. There is nothing that says you have to be 5 models wide, so just put your command up front, possibly a character and now your 3 or 4 wide with you character in the second rank. Now you've got to kill the unit champ just to bring the character back up to the front, or depending on how many characters you put in the unit, it may be a couple of rounds before you can whittle them down to force the hidden guy to the front rank. Sure they may not get any ranks, but the intent is to bunker the guy vice winning through combat res.

My opinion - a unit with characters in it should be as wide as needed to accomodate all characters being in the front rank. Solves these shenannigans quick.

Well...if you're not at least 5 (3) models wide, you don't get Steadfast, and you're probably losing combat. That said, I'm okay with my opponent trying this trick.
It can get pretty lame with Hammerers/White Lions/etc. though.

I think I kind of like that idea of minimum frontage; it has its problems on principle, but in game-play the only guys who could make this an issue are goblins and Warlock Engineers.
It should probably be something like "a unit should be wide enough so that all characters are in the front rank, unless there is not enough space (due to terrain, other units, etc.)."
That way, units with characters in them won't be forbidden from conga-lining between stuff.

Though another way to help would be to put character's front-rank priority above command groups.

Wow, that really is a hell of a FAQ update! You must get characters into the front row whenever possible, you no longer have to use the general's Ld if it is worse, models are not in base contact with themselves (makes that one Beastman banner worth having I guess...)

Damn, maybe we need a sticky with the latest FAQ links and changes.

Red_Zeke wrote:Second thought: Updated FAQs!!

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOA

Somewhat saddened by the character change (my skaven BSB depends on hiding in the second rank to live, no matter how much defensive gear I've bought him), but it does simplify things, and I tend to forget myself and move characters into hydra-devouring range anyway. But I'm f-ing thrilled that auto-Inspiring Presence is done for. Thank you, GeeDub

- Salvage

Wehrkind wrote:Wow, that really is a hell of a FAQ update! You must get characters into the front row whenever possible, you no longer have to use the general's Ld if it is worse, models are not in base contact with themselves (makes that one Beastman banner worth having I guess...)

Damn, maybe we need a sticky with the latest FAQ links and changes.

Please do, I hate not knowing when GW updates the FAQ's.

JimLofa wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:I don't let that definition of cheese bother me. I just try to think of ways around it. As I said before, there is a counter for everything in 8th ed, you just have to look for it.

I also don't build my armies based on fluff. I play to win and I bulid lists that are competative, but I'm not a "WAAC" player as I have seen it defined on here.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a list that is competative/hard and playing to win. I take issue with playing people with bad attitudes or people who get so upset they can't control themselves (i.e. throw dice, cuss, etc) or who are just buttholes.

But I don't have any issue playing against someone who tooled their list to be optimized and who plays hard.

I couldn't agree more. If there is one thing I hate it is a player who brings anything but his best. Thats not to say there is no room for a casual game, but I see no reason to intentionally bring an inferior list. To do so is like telling your opponent 'you're not worth my best effort,' or 'I know you stand little chance against me, so I'll go easy.'

Its hard to get better by winning all the time. Losing on the other hand highlights your every miscalculation and error in judgment. Personally, I value one good butt-kicking much more than a whole day of victory.

-Jim

But wouldn't this just lead to everyone using cookie cutter lists? In all honesty I base armies around which units I like the look of. So for example using my Eldar there's certain units always in the army, effective or not I'll muddle by, I like how they look and I'll use them. End of the day it's a game. WoC I'm skipping hellcannons for a few reasons ranging from cost to transporting it will be annoying in the long run and a few others and going with other units I feel I'll still get mileage out of.

That is true, to an extent. Skaven use Doomrockets, A-bombs, Stormbanners, Warp Lightning Cannons and Power Scrolls. Just a fact o' life, now.

If we all played, first and foremost, to have the best list we could, we'd see, more or less, a few different builds per army, with minor variations on those builds from player to player.
Then again, we see a lot of that already.

Honestly, I'm tired of people saying "people who play hard lists are TFG who WAAC and is a total jerk", and "people who don't play hard lists are whiney sore losers who throw tantrums because they're not good enough".

There's some middle ground, folks.

I will say this, though: everyone's goal should, opinions be damned, be to have fun. And a whole lot of problems in this world would be erased if people stopped loving victory so much.

I tryed to follow this must be put in the front this whole time and you lost me:

Characters have to be in the front unles you have a champion, musician and standarbearer and are 3 wide (sueside) or if you have sead retuine and 2 more heroes in the front (so that is a bus 5 wide, 3 special people in the front, 2 characters and a 1rd character behind.)

Hva I understood it?

Warpsolution wrote:That is true, to an extent. Skaven use Doomrockets, A-bombs, Stormbanners, Warp Lightning Cannons and Power Scrolls. Just a fact o' life, now.

If we all played, first and foremost, to have the best list we could, we'd see, more or less, a few different builds per army, with minor variations on those builds from player to player.
Then again, we see a lot of that already.

I think you're oversimplifying. Most armies have a pretty huge number of solid builds. The diversity of magic items and magic spells ensures this if nothing else. As well as the randomness of terrain and randomness of what army you're facing.