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.

One of the few times i have disagreed with you Duke...

Agree on the modularity of 8th, that is a good thing.

However:
Dwarves do NOT need/want magic. Magic items: fine, More units: fine(ish), spells, GOD NO! Bound spell runes, maybe, but not magic like the other races.

Lizardmen have plenty of unit choices IMO, they just need tweaking so that some arent auto choices (Salamanders im looking at you).

High Elves, yes to Teclis getting nerfed (or the Banner of the World Dragon getting some anti-Teclis treatment to stop the Bunker of Doom), but High elves are MEANT to have lots of Magic items, why take those away?(yes, i know, they are removing most other army specific magic item choices, but still...)

The others i dont know well, so cant comment on, except:
Brets and WEs need new books, whether that be now or closer to 9th, they NEED new books.

Really confused by all the demand for a new Beast book. They were the last release of 7th and barely 2 years old! The book plays well and baring some internal balance issues, its all gravy.

Really the only true 'problem area' is the 3 big monsters lumped into the Rare slot. While a price-drop or re-writing of the rules would be very nice for them, its really such a minor issue that it can be ignored. They're hardly any worse than a Daemon Prince or Silver Helms in the other books, they just stand out a bit because they got nice and new models.

Characters are all fantastic, Gor rock. Ungor are excellent support units. Warhounds need to become true-Core but this is common to lots of units. Bestigor are pure filth and Razorgor are epic. Centigor and Minotaurs are a little tragic, and the whole Rare section can just be written off. But the book is still solid, competitive and fairly spot-on relative to the 8th Edition powerlevels.

They have absolutely nothing on the Bretonnians, Woodies or Dwarfs in terms of needing an update.

Grey Templar wrote:Hmmm, either marielle got spanked by some Beastmen OR he's only played incompetant ogre players

Not at all. But the truth is that if Beastmen need a new book then so do Ogres - just as the lack of a ward save on Beastmen Monsters is bad, so is the latest version of the Butcher tax... etc....

Beastmen are fine.

marielle wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Hmmm, either marielle got spanked by some Beastmen OR he's only played incompetant ogre players

Not at all. But the truth is that if Beastmen need a new book then so do Ogres - just as the lack of a ward save on Beastmen Monsters is bad, so is the latest version of the Butcher tax... etc....

Beastmen are fine.

Really? Beastmen only have one competitive build and that means taking only 2 unit types. Ogres just got a new book and are fine. They have a variety of things to take all of which are competitive.

Saying because beastmen need a new book so do ogres is like saying because the sky is blue so is the grass.

Dwarves need the update the most to fix thier magic phases. The fact they can take 10 dispell scrolls kill the game and is one of the few things that breaks the game still without being a special character. I'd also like to see the anvil reworked to function in the magic phase.

Demons need it to have more than one build. So do WoC.

Bret's, beastmen, and WE need it in general.

He and de just need an update to not be middle of the pack.

Lizards are fine, skaven are fine. All new books are fine.

The 'one Beastman list' is only as valid as any other army. WoC 'need' Marauders and Chosenstar. High Elves 'need' Teclis and a Lion/Phoenixbunker. Lizards 'need' Slann, Woodies 'need' Treekin, and Daemons 'need' Tzeentch Heralds.

Having a generally-agreed-to-be-best army list does not translate into the only viable option. The very existence of the Minobus immediately gives us 2 real options. A certain Mr. Ghorros has made a name for himself by running a MSU army and meeting great success. I personally haven't seen it, but there is also the full-Chariot army which is a bit of a laugh.

Beasts still have a lot of bite, numerous options when building the list, and are still in the top half of 'recently-released-books'.

Stoupe wrote:

marielle wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Hmmm, either marielle got spanked by some Beastmen OR he's only played incompetant ogre players

Not at all. But the truth is that if Beastmen need a new book then so do Ogres - just as the lack of a ward save on Beastmen Monsters is bad, so is the latest version of the Butcher tax... etc....

Beastmen are fine.

Really? Beastmen only have one competitive build and that means taking only 2 unit types. Ogres just got a new book and are fine. They have a variety of things to take all of which are competitive.

Saying because beastmen need a new book so do ogres is like saying because the sky is blue so is the grass.

That is a silly analogy.

As for 'competitive' builds, then Ogres are pretty limited bar 300 points @ 2400 - most armies are.

Anywho...

The point is there are armies that need a book more than Beastmen, and the Beastman book is fine.

I think they need to take some extra time, develop all the Army books add whatever new stuff to each, play test all. THEN…release the Main rule book and all army books together. These main rules then all FAQs and Erratas are killing me. One shot everything is up-to-date.

cptjoeyg wrote:I think they need to take some extra time, develop all the Army books add whatever new stuff to each, play test all. THEN…release the Main rule book and all army books together. These main rules then all FAQs and Erratas are killing me. One shot everything is up-to-date.

And then they lose all ability to market each book and appropriate new units/models seperately, which they wont do....

I am really surprised that more people don't complain about true line of sight. That is one of the things I want to see gone in 9th edition. As a Wood Elf player I'm sick of war machines just being able to fire right through woods into my army.

I'm used to playing other game systems (namely FoW) where things like forests matter. It forces more tactics rather than the mad rush across the open field that I see with most Fantasy battles.

If forests were modeled to be like real forests are... Tlos would not be an issue.

Stoupe wrote:If forests were modeled to be like real forests are... Tlos would not be an issue.

Depends on the forest...

Stoupe wrote:If forests were modeled to be like real forests are... Tlos would not be an issue.

This. I am sure some modular forest could easily be created that would allow for the blocking of tlos and then troops could be moved into it. Similar to the concept of a two story building where you can take the top level off to place people on the bottom level. Have a forest where there is a fabric cut out that the forest sits upon that can be left in its place when the forest is removed to allow troops through but until then, the forest is thick enough to prevent tlos. I would think as a hobby community we would all jump at the chance for this as it would allow for more creativity with terrain.

Or this:

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Stoupe wrote:If forests were modeled to be like real forests are... Tlos would not be an issue.

Depends on the forest...

I understand your argument but look at that Forrest and tell me how a 6" diameter forest works to represent that. To me if a forest is a forest it should take up at least a quarter of the board. While sure you could easily
Shoot a cannonball through that forest, the ability to
"snipe" characters would be far more inaccurate than it already is!

Stoupe wrote:I understand your argument but look at that Forrest and tell me how a 6" diameter forest works to represent that. To me if a forest is a forest it should take up at least a quarter of the board. While sure you could easily
Shoot a cannonball through that forest, the ability to
"snipe" characters would be far more inaccurate than it already is!

Then what you are looking for is a Copse, not a Forest...:

Bearing in mind that one has a wall around it, you still cant hide very well in it...

And dont talk to me about cannon sniping, i have issues with that enough already...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or even this:

A battle in a forest would be more of a battle with 12 terrain pieces, all of them forests.

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Stoupe wrote:I understand your argument but look at that Forrest and tell me how a 6" diameter forest works to represent that. To me if a forest is a forest it should take up at least a quarter of the board. While sure you could easily
Shoot a cannonball through that forest, the ability to
"snipe" characters would be far more inaccurate than it already is!

Then what you are looking for is a Copse, not a Forest...:

Bearing in mind that one has a wall around it, you still cant hide very well in it...

And dont talk to me about cannon sniping, i have issues with that enough already...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or even this:

These aren't forests. Or even woods. They are trees.

Stoupe wrote:These aren't forests. Or even woods. They are trees.

Congratulations! You won the 'i didnt read the post, but i commented anyway!' award!

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Then what you are looking for is a Copse, not a Forest...:

As long as they fix that beyond-slowed magic system aka Yahtzee Deluxe, 9th will be a good edition.

Not going to keep playing WHFB with 8th.

9th... oh come on! I'm still reading the book for 8th... *slow to learn*

EDIT: Actually I would like a new WoC book. Nice hardcover with full color and breasts.

Revenent Reiko wrote:

Stoupe wrote:I understand your argument but look at that Forrest and tell me how a 6" diameter forest works to represent that. To me if a forest is a forest it should take up at least a quarter of the board. While sure you could easily
Shoot a cannonball through that forest, the ability to
"snipe" characters would be far more inaccurate than it already is!

Then what you are looking for is a Copse, not a Forest...:

Bearing in mind that one has a wall around it, you still cant hide very well in it...

And dont talk to me about cannon sniping, i have issues with that enough already...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or even this:

They are pretty much the scale of most terrain features.

I understand the forest point, but to extrapolate the average size of 'trees' on the table to forests would make each building a city.

This thread is like the media on political elections. Well the 2010 elections are over, day later "Lets make predictions about 2012!". Really people we have a good way to go in 8th still so shut up sit down and enjoy the ride.

If you had a to scale forest on your gaming table there would be no room to move your units. I remember a few games into 8th when we realized forests don't matter. We actually stopped using them as terrain because it felt pointless. My friends and I opt for walls, rocks, hard objects.

I think LM are competitive with their current book but I would still like to see a new book. I think Brets, WE, and Dwarfs need books first though. I would like to see a FAQ to make cavalry useful again on those flank charges.

Aerethan wrote:Um, no? Ogres are easily a top 5 book right now, Beastmen are a bottom 3, just before Brets and Wood Elves.

Arguing an army does or doesn't need an update because of its relative power to other books is the wrong way to look at the issue. All that does is mean the weakest book is rewritten to put it at or near the top, meaning there's a new weakest book, which gets rewritten to put it at or near the top... and so on until oh look, powercreep.

Books should be rewritten because they work in a way that is disfunctional or boring. The Vampire Counts needed a rewrite because their magic phase was horribly boring, and because their core troop, skeletons, were not viable. They got it, and now are much more fun to play with and against.

Similarly, Beastmen are a good candidate for a rewrite because what should be a major section of their army, the monsters, are just not worth the points they cost, and are in general pretty underwhelming on the field. Wood Elves need a new list because their most viable builds are tactically limiting, generally annoying to play against, and the win is normally based on having a good match up for their points denial approach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stoupe wrote:If forests were modeled to be like real forests are... Tlos would not be an issue.

But dense forests are a hassle to game with, because while a unit might split up and move around trees while they advance, a tray of models can't do the same thing. So instead we put just a couple of trees on a base, and generally make those removable.

That used to be a workable enough abstraction, because we didn't have true LOS to worry about. Now we either figure trees provide little LOS protection, or we build denser forests that'll be a big hassle during play. It'd really be easier to go back to terrain rules.

Also, infinitely high hills produced way more interesting games. Although in our group that one prompted one player to go and make some hill that are taller than infantry, so that's worked nicely.

sebster wrote:Similarly, Beastmen are a good candidate for a rewrite because what should be a major section of their army, the monsters, are just not worth the points they cost, and are in general pretty underwhelming on the field. Wood Elves need a new list because their most viable builds are tactically limiting, generally annoying to play against, and the win is normally based on having a good match up for their points denial approach.

I listened to the latest issue of Ohiohammer, and he had done an analysis of the armies at Blood in the Sun. Far from Beastmen being an underwhelming army they came out as one of the top 3. The worst performing army was High Elves. Though the tournament winner played Ogres, Ogres as an army ranked 6th (which imo is about right).

Dwarves and dispell scrolls are what's breaking 8th? Really? Taking 10+ scrolls in a dwarf army costs a CONSIDERABLE amount of points, and I should think that what is left over would get annihilated in a TAC environment. Unless of course your Meta is 100% magic, I don't see the problem. Dwarves don't GET magic. They can't answere your magic phase with their own, so they have to rely on shutting down yours, and that, my friend, is far from reliable...

I say let's get Dwarves, WOC, Daemons, DE and HE done before 9th. LM and Skaven are still fairly solid (ESPECIALLY Skaven) Then we can have the first two books of 9th be those two (8+ months after the book is released, natch.) Then, an orc release, a redux of whatever was the most competitive army in 8th but utterly nerfed by 9th, Beastmen, then Brets, then Tomb Kings, 10th edition, another orc release, then WE.

But we have to make sure WE is even weaker in 10th than its 6th ed book.

#notbitteratallthanks

Johnny-Crass wrote:This thread is like the media on political elections. Well the 2010 elections are over, day later "Lets make predictions about 2012!". Really people we have a good way to go in 8th still so shut up sit down and enjoy the ride.

Nah this thread was considering we are only getting one Fantasy book this yeah, WoC. (Going on current and strong rumour)

For those waiting for their books to be updated, would you want a tail end 8th book, when 9th will getting close to a year away when the next Fantasy book comes out in the new year.

I have no issue with the discussion about issues in 8th, but the thread was about army books and the possability of being stuck with a lemon when the new edition hit. While even just six months later at the end of next year (when they will probably take 9th into account ala Necrons and 6th) you'll be set for the next edition.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

Johnny-Crass wrote:This thread is like the media on political elections. Well the 2010 elections are over, day later "Lets make predictions about 2012!". Really people we have a good way to go in 8th still so shut up sit down and enjoy the ride.

Nah this thread was considering we are only getting one Fantasy book this yeah, WoC. (Going on current and strong rumour)

For those waiting for their books to be updated, would you want a tail end 8th book, when 9th will getting close to a year away when the next Fantasy book comes out in the new year.

I have no issue with the discussion about issues in 8th, but the thread was about army books and the possability of being stuck with a lemon when the new edition hit. While even just six months later at the end of next year (when they will probably take 9th into account ala Necrons and 6th) you'll be set for the next edition.

Um, we already got 2 fantasy books this year. VC and Empire. They just happened to be crammed into the first quarter of the year with nothing else coming out until late 3rd or 4th quarter.

As much as i'd like to see what the new big lizard would be, i really think WE, Brets and Dwarves need to be updated already.

Sigvatr wrote:As long as they fix that beyond-slowed magic system aka Yahtzee Deluxe, 9th will be a good edition.

Not going to keep playing WHFB with 8th.

It's still better than 7th's broken spam magic. At least 8th is fair to everyone getting this, rather than a certain few going from X dice to 15-20+ magic dice per turn.