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.

I've played a lot of 8th, but it needs a few minor tweaks:

Cannons vs monsters do d3 wounds unless a natural 6 to wound is rolled, and they haven't hit anything prior to the monster then they do d6 wounds.

Test or die spells. do wound with no armour save. MR fixed at same time! yay! other minor tweaks like casting values and what power of lore would be welcomed.

Steadfast: needs some help maybe a -2 modifier to having having of 5+ models of cav in the flank to LD test for steadfast. Steadfast should give undead a bonus as well. Maybe crumble is reduced by 50%

a new mix of 15-20 magic items to mix it all up a bit.

I think allies can be implemented in a fair version. Along with a mercenary book like dogs of war used to be. I like the idea of purchasing terrain. WE get a free wood, and can buy another D3 woods. I think that other armies should be able to buy 1 piece each.

There is some army balance issues. Namely BOTWD. Skaven is strong, but not that bad. Yes they need a new book mainly to clean up all the wackiness that lies in there. Beastmen and brets need a new book soon. TK and O&G can use some help as well. But the entire system is pretty coherent.

I think Large Target should be what weakens cannons. There's some monsters without LT but also other stuff with it. Like a Stank is LT. And it makes sense a steel tank is more immune to cannons. The way the game works, Monster just means thunderstomp and not join units. But LT means you're really big and can't get cover. So LT is actually size.

If they did partial points for models killed in a unit (maybe some simple formula like 0/50%/100%) then deathstars would be severely curtailed which would allow mega spells to be curtailed and steadfast, etc.

BUT, I think a lot of people remember there was a point before steadfast when you didn't ever take junky units. And definitely not a lot of them, because they'd just break and die. So horde armies were pretty sucky and whole bunches of units were worthless. Steadfast changed that. Likewise, Stomp and Thunderstomp were two simple rules that made the Monstrous units a lot better. It was really brilliant IMHO.

I would love to see more magic items. We REALLY need more banners.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I think Large Target should be what weakens cannons. There's some monsters without LT but also other stuff with it. Like a Stank is LT. And it makes sense a steel tank is more immune to cannons. The way the game works, Monster just means thunderstomp and not join units. But LT means you're really big and can't get cover. So LT is actually size.

If they did partial points for models killed in a unit (maybe some simple formula like 0/50%/100%) then deathstars would be severely curtailed which would allow mega spells to be curtailed and steadfast, etc.

BUT, I think a lot of people remember there was a point before steadfast when you didn't ever take junky units. And definitely not a lot of them, because they'd just break and die. So horde armies were pretty sucky and whole bunches of units were worthless. Steadfast changed that. Likewise, Stomp and Thunderstomp were two simple rules that made the Monstrous units a lot better. It was really brilliant IMHO.

I would love to see more magic items. We REALLY need more banners.

Good Call on Large Target Vs Monster. I'd totally agree with that distinction. Some events I go to, treat partial points for units and 1/2 if a unit is fleeing at end of game.

Yes more banners, and weapons. I miss the +T line of weapons. How about Magic Ranged weapons? And there has been a significant lack of items that contain bound spells in this edition. I recently revieced the old Warhammer Magic box, and there was a lot of fun stuff in that book. I think there was a +1 Armour save Banner for a silly cheap cost of 50 points or something.

 Acardia wrote:
I've played a lot of 8th, but it needs a few minor tweaks:

Cannons vs monsters do d3 wounds unless a natural 6 to wound is rolled, and they haven't hit anything prior to the monster then they do d6 wounds.

I agree, so much. Cannons are just too powerful. Also, MR not doing anything against "Test or die spells" Which, honestly, need to not exist. Like really.

Also, no allies. That's whats messed up with 40k.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

 captain collius wrote:
8th is 4 years old. For the most part there are some annoying rules (Cannons, Steadfast, BoTWD, the entire skaven armybook, and Portaglyph to name a few.) But the game is pretty well balanced an army can win (provided a good general and list concept.)

The age of a game doesn't matter much. In fact, as gamers it shouldn't matter at all unless it's bad. I just looked at some convention schedules coming up and I saw games I hadn't played in over 20 years. And it's the same rules. Further, you mentioned some ITEMS. Those could take one sentence in one FAQ to fix. OR, you could just house rule it yourself. Hardly needs a 500 page book for that.

I'm really impressed with how stable 8th is.

Well that was my point we have had 4 years to find game breaking stupidity in the book and for the most part. It is annoyances and little english mistakes.
I understand it only takes an FAQ to fix them. If these are the problems we have we are doing well.

 captain collius wrote:
Well that was my point we have had 4 years to find game breaking stupidity in the book and for the most part. It is annoyances and little english mistakes.
I understand it only takes an GAQ to fix them. If yjese are the problems we have we are doing well.

QFT

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Acardia wrote:
I've played a lot of 8th, but it needs a few minor tweaks:

Cannons vs monsters do d3 wounds unless a natural 6 to wound is rolled, and they haven't hit anything prior to the monster then they do d6 wounds.

I agree, so much. Cannons are just too powerful. Also, MR not doing anything against "Test or die spells" Which, honestly, need to not exist. Like really.

Also, no allies. That's whats messed up with 40k.

Eh, if the test or die spells go, deathstars get more powerful. Same with MR. There needs to be a paper to the rock.

Cannons do feel too powerful, just some sort of tweak to accuracy would be nice. They shouldn't be toned down too much, though. Again, paper to the rock. I just want monsters and monstrous mounts to be a tiiiiny bit more worth it in general.

Agree on allies. I'll be very disappointed if there are allies in the core rules.

WHFB is the better game, better set of rules. Need a few adjustments at competitive play, but then works really well. Huge problem: entry barrier. Ridiculously prices, as usual, but you need so many more models than in 40k, it's not even funny.

 namiel wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Whats the big problem with cannons?

the cheap points costs and the fact that they are str 10 doing d6 wounds have pretty much invalidated monsters universally. Its a big debate cannons should be powerful and they only hit in a straight line but if you look at any competitive scene you will see a major lack of monsters because of that reason. No one wants to lose 200+ points on turn one because someone single shot it with a cannon. I disagree that cannons should be lowered in strength but for monsters i really think doing d3 or d3+1 wounds may be a better solution to prevent the single shot dead monster.

I see how that would be a problem. D3 wounds for monsters seems like a reasonable solution I think.

Honestly I hope allies stays as it is with the recent expansion they added. That of multiple players backstabbing each other


I generally hate (and thus agree with others) when a miniatures game goes wholesale on allies between factions because it generally destroys balance in the game itself; plus means that pure single faction armies are typically fighting at a disadvantage over allied armies playing off each others strengths.

Granted its optional and you can play pure VS pure; but putting the formal "everyone or most" can ally into the rules does break things. And its not really needed - those who want to play two or three armies at once on the same side will do so anyway without it needing to be official. (so long as their opponents agree).

So I hope fantasy doesn't go down the whole "lets let everyone ally" path.



IF anything I'd say that fantasy really only needs to have a rules update or addition to allow for smaller point matches to be more viable to help entice people into the game (esp if they go for a swarm heavy army - 1.5-2K of rats to get up to general player point levels is a mountain of models to prepare - let there be easy scaling to 500 point matches and that takes a big part of the sting out of things without diminishing the fun

 Sigvatr wrote:
Need a few adjustments at competitive play, but then works really well.

The game wasn't ever intended for competitive play. Not really. The fact there is a hotlink for TFG tells you there are many loopholes you can exploit and make everyone hate you--and also make you more successful if you don't care about making friends.

There's so many dice being thrown and so many armies that span multiple years and authors that you're never going to have balance. It's like every once in a while I click over to some poker tournament and if they don't get the cards, they don't get the cards. I don't care how thick your sunglasses are and your hoodie and what odds you know. If you get a garbage hand every time you won't win.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Acardia wrote:
I've played a lot of 8th, but it needs a few minor tweaks:

Cannons vs monsters do d3 wounds unless a natural 6 to wound is rolled, and they haven't hit anything prior to the monster then they do d6 wounds.

I agree, so much. Cannons are just too powerful. Also, MR not doing anything against "Test or die spells" Which, honestly, need to not exist. Like really.

Also, no allies. That's whats messed up with 40k.

Well yes and no because if 'test or die' spells don't exist then things like BotWD are going to be that much more unstoppable. As it is skaven can't shoot them down because all of our shooting is magical aside from slings. Usually it'll also be a more heavily armored unit like white lions that get this and they have 3+ armor against shooting making it pretty impossible for skaven to shoot them down. Our only choice is just to flank the freaking things or throw them off into the middle of nowhere. If we can't 13th that crap then handling it becomes pretty hard.

Personally I think skaven just needs a lot more options. We have a few builds and almost every army looks the same. If you don't use 'the list' then it's just no good. I find it crazy so many people still say skaven need to be toned down. Are you sure the skaven players aren't just really skilled? I've been playing them once every week or two for about 5 years and the army has never been weaker in my opinion. I'm unsure if I want to take weapons teams because of all the different ways people can get line of sight over slave units to see them. All it takes is a few shots from anything and the weapon team is dead. Our rares are amazing no lie but most of our specials suck. We could do double abomination and that might be painful but I'm always uncertain of it because it takes up all your rare points which means no cannons.

Anyway skaven just need more options. We have no cavalry, no monstrous cavalry, no flyers, no armored units, no fast units, our magic is old and has poor range and it shows (13th is powerful yes but what about the other spells?) and please god make some of the units useful like the weapons teams. At least give weapons teams more survivability. Give us a skaven-slave suicide bomb team similar in function to fanatics, more weapons teams, more rares possibly, skaven jetpacks (seriously give us this and you can make our other new units crap for all I care) and just some new options. You can even gut out most of our stuff like storm banner and nerf fellblade. I just want a book with updated stuff which has good options.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Acardia wrote:
I've played a lot of 8th, but it needs a few minor tweaks:

Cannons vs monsters do d3 wounds unless a natural 6 to wound is rolled, and they haven't hit anything prior to the monster then they do d6 wounds.

I agree, so much. Cannons are just too powerful. Also, MR not doing anything against "Test or die spells" Which, honestly, need to not exist. Like really.

Also, no allies. That's whats messed up with 40k.

Well yes and no because if 'test or die' spells don't exist then things like BotWD are going to be that much more unstoppable. As it is skaven can't shoot them down because all of our shooting is magical aside from slings. Usually it'll also be a more heavily armored unit like white lions that get this and they have 3+ armor against shooting making it pretty impossible for skaven to shoot them down. Our only choice is just to flank the freaking things or throw them off into the middle of nowhere. If we can't 13th that crap then handling it becomes pretty hard.

Personally I think skaven just needs a lot more options. We have a few builds and almost every army looks the same. If you don't use 'the list' then it's just no good. I find it crazy so many people still say skaven need to be toned down. Are you sure the skaven players aren't just really skilled? I've been playing them once every week or two for about 5 years and the army has never been weaker in my opinion. I'm unsure if I want to take weapons teams because of all the different ways people can get line of sight over slave units to see them. All it takes is a few shots from anything and the weapon team is dead. Our rares are amazing no lie but most of our specials suck. We could do double abomination and that might be painful but I'm always uncertain of it because it takes up all your rare points which means no cannons.

Anyway skaven just need more options. We have no cavalry, no monstrous cavalry, no flyers, no armored units, no fast units, our magic is old and has poor range and it shows (13th is powerful yes but what about the other spells?) and please god make some of the units useful like the weapons teams. At least give weapons teams more survivability. Give us a skaven-slave suicide bomb team similar in function to fanatics, more weapons teams, more rares possibly, skaven jetpacks (seriously give us this and you can make our other new units crap for all I care) and just some new options. You can even gut out most of our stuff like storm banner and nerf fellblade. I just want a book with updated stuff which has good options.

Oh believe me that banner was over the top power wise. Skaven could use some fun stuff maybe a couple of BRB lores, shadow and fire come to mind. maybe others based on certain clan's allegiance.

 Sigvatr wrote:
WHFB is the better game, better set of rules. Need a few adjustments at competitive play, but then works really well. Huge problem: entry barrier. Ridiculously prices, as usual, but you need so many more models than in 40k, it's not even funny.

I call untrue on this one. It is hugely army dependent as in 40k. Some have a low model count and others high numbers and therefore cost. It also depends on points level.

You can play 500pt games. But because of static power dice and some static other things, the game is harder to balance. Likewise at super high point levels it's not as balanced. If you're playing a 5K point game, magic is practically inconsequential--at least for a while.

But, you know, if you're playing WoC @500 and you have Chosen and get a free DP show up at turn 1, you just won the game. Or if you're DoC and you lose 1/3 of your forces because of Winds.

More and more it sounds like a good chunk of the game is based on faction or army or at least in 40k (maybe to a lesser extent fantasy). It kind of turns me off to the game. I'll admit though fantasy can be tough. I just wish skaven could do more than swamp the field. I see my opponents doing all this fancy movement whereas I'm stuck castling up or making a strange formation. I'm not totally feeling it with skaven anymore. I like their aesthetic but what brought me to the faction (goofy weapons teams and clan skryre in particular) just goes down fast and that's not fun.

I won't lie skaven are pretty dumb OP in low points games because we cost so little and can have high leadership in small games but in games where gun-lines can be bigger it's just not.

I'm also seeing dwarf players and possibly empire too just hug a corner of the board so their guns all have line of sight. That way you can't go anywhere close without getting hit by every gun of the opponent. I saw some complain today just seeing dwarfs as not fun to play against as it's the same crap of doing that.

 John Rainbow wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
WHFB is the better game, better set of rules. Need a few adjustments at competitive play, but then works really well. Huge problem: entry barrier. Ridiculously prices, as usual, but you need so many more models than in 40k, it's not even funny.

I call untrue on this one. It is hugely army dependent as in 40k. Some have a low model count and others high numbers and therefore cost. It also depends on points level.

WHFB is army dependent, but not nearly as much so as 40k. It's not nearly as rock-paper-scissory, so a TAC WHFB is far more useful and inherently balanced than a TAC 40k army.

I just don't understand why people think skaven are so OP. Is it certain builds? I don't do double seer with 13th, double abomination or anything like that so that might be part of why I'm not doing so well. It does seem that castle formation is needed but without the abomination or some heavy melee unit skaven seem to fall pretty fast.

Perhaps I should go back to weapons teams but then even somewhat decent players make sure those die fast. If I do double abomination then I can't use any other rares like warp lightning cannons and that could be kind of hard.

---------

Far as cannons go it's been a while since I faced too many but I remember how dumb they were. I'm more annoyed they can be used to snipe a character off a large target. You know how sometimes you expect your main leader to be in a unit of the toughest guys or on an impressive war machine. Well how about instead we force your general into a stupid small unit as far behind every other unit as possible (that way you don't have to worry about losing your general and ruining your awesome unit). I guess it can make sense but it's a little weird for an epic battle. Not to mention you probably want your wizards in your small units of cheap idiots anyway in case of miscast blowing up half the unit. Perhaps this isn't always the case but with vampires and skaven the whole keep the general away from harm method seems to be huge.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 John Rainbow wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
WHFB is the better game, better set of rules. Need a few adjustments at competitive play, but then works really well. Huge problem: entry barrier. Ridiculously prices, as usual, but you need so many more models than in 40k, it's not even funny.

I call untrue on this one. It is hugely army dependent as in 40k. Some have a low model count and others high numbers and therefore cost. It also depends on points level.

WHFB is army dependent, but not nearly as much so as 40k. It's not nearly as rock-paper-scissory, so a TAC WHFB is far more useful and inherently balanced than a TAC 40k army.

While I agree with you I believe he was referring to the fact an Ogre army is going to be a lot cheaper in $ than an infantry based one.

 EmilCrane wrote:

 Rommel44 wrote:
Steadfast needs to be tweaked to help cavalry, also if you are hit in the flank with a large enough unit, you should lose steadfast. Its no broken but it needs a few changes.

The problem isn't cavalry, its human cavalry, somewhere along the line GW decreed that all humans must be 3s across the board and anyone wanting to change this suffers pain of execution.

This is a fair statement to a certain degree. I play Bretonnia mainly, and we are currently still suffering from Old-Book syndrome and from the looks of things, we will be waiting for awhile longer. Granted human Cavalry has it's strengths (1+ Armor save for Empire Knights, the Lance formation for Bretonnia), overall they still struggle a little bit, but it is pretty sad if Empire can field a more effect cavalry list right now then Bretonnia, who are supposed to be the best cavalry army in the game. Hopefully they will make some smart changes (KOTR being S4 base, and KE dropping to 18 points a model is a start), because overall the Bretonnia book isn't horrible, however they need a lot of Point Changes and some rules to make them more devastating on the charge, as they struggle to break enemy units unless you put two to 3x lances into a single horde unit. Granted it works a lot of the time, however the problem is that a smart opponent will use that against me and it has been hard to pull off some wins when that happens.

@The OP: I think the reason that 40K is getting so much love right now is the edition change. They need to push hard to ride that momentum. New starter set, new armybooks, new models.

Fantasy, by comparison, is just stable. Most of the books are done, and until we get a new edition there's not much to do to bring people in. I'd assume that next year when we get a new edition (which most rumours say we will) we'll get similar treatment: new book, new starter set, a few new armies out in short succession (probably the ones in the starter set, which sounds to be Orcs and Empire).

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I just don't understand why people think skaven are so OP. Is it certain builds? I don't do double seer with 13th, double abomination or anything like that so that might be part of why I'm not doing so well. It does seem that castle formation is needed but without the abomination or some heavy melee unit skaven seem to fall pretty fast.

The problem with a tooled-up Skaven army is that the game really turns on how hot the Skaven player's dice are. You often don't lose against Skaven because he out-played you...you lose because his doomrocket scored a direct hit and wiped out 600 points of Tomb Guard in one turn. Or that his WLC rolled a 10 for strength and ate your whole gutstar. Or because his HPA stood back up and smacked you in the flank. Skaven aren't OP on balance, but when their dice are on fire you might as well just pack up and go home.

...which is a really poor way to balance an army, IMHO. It really detracts from the game when so much of the game depends on the dice. It's like losing to Warriors because they got a free demon prince, or to demons because he rolled double 1s on instability. There are times when these rolls are epic, but there are also times when it's the dice gods throwing a big "feth You" and arbitrarily swinging the course of the game.

13th needs some serious fixing as well, for a very similar reason. Purple Sun, Dwellers, or Final Trans all suck, but at least you can blame losing models on rolling poorly on your tests. 13th the Skaven player just rolls it and your elite unit turns into friggin clanrats. It's just plain unpleasant. You feel like you have no agency in the game, and it's just being decided by Skaven dice.

Not to mention the fact that the book is ridiculously opaque, and Skaven players are NOTORIOUS for cheating in tournaments. Not necessarily with malice, but just because nobody knows what the hell is going on but the skaven player knows the rules a bit better and is more likely to "remember" the ones that benefit him, instead of the other way around.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

Far as cannons go it's been a while since I faced too many but I remember how dumb they were. I'm more annoyed they can be used to snipe a character off a large target. You know how sometimes you expect your main leader to be in a unit of the toughest guys or on an impressive war machine. Well how about instead we force your general into a stupid small unit as far behind every other unit as possible (that way you don't have to worry about losing your general and ruining your awesome unit). I guess it can make sense but it's a little weird for an epic battle. Not to mention you probably want your wizards in your small units of cheap idiots anyway in case of miscast blowing up half the unit. Perhaps this isn't always the case but with vampires and skaven the whole keep the general away from harm method seems to be huge.

The character sniping is really the most obnoxious part. My Vampire Lord on a cav-base hellsteed gets hit very nearly as easily as a friggin terrorgheist on that 100x200 monstrosity of a base it's on. Fire a bolthrower through two forests, over a hill, through a ranked unit, and into a character standing in the open behind it and it's taking massive penalties. Do that with a cannonball and it hits just as easily as it would a steamtank sitting stationary in the open. It's stupid.


My take is that cannons need to scatter. Place the shot, scatter it d6-BS, and THEN roll the bounce. This way you can't snipe a fething infantry model from across the table, but you can still probably hit a dragon on their huge bases. Oh, and also randomize hits between monster and rider, so that we can take those awesome dragon-mounted lords and heroes again. 1-3 mount, 4-5 rider, 6 both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Cavalry is a choice because armies that can take them usually have very low point core. So it's a way of getting your core tax out of the way and having some fast, high armor units--that don't do a whole lot. Silver Helms cost twice as much as the other core and can get 2+/6+ at M9.

But you don't see a lot of marauder cavalry because WoC has access to Chaos Warriors and such.

Foot warriors get exactly zero play in competitive Warhammer. Marauders have their place fighting warmachines. Dogs have their place as cheap chaff. Chariots are point-for-point one of the best core choices in the game (T5 3+ on a core model is just...argh...). But foot warriors are too slow, and have no synergy with the rest of the army. They're used as an expensive mage bunker and that's about it.

I really don't understand how people think that cavalry needs a boost. They're fast, resilient, and hard-hitting. Who needs steadfast when you're winning combats anyways? The only armies running lots of infantry as core are the ones who don't have any better options. Silverhelms, Dark Riders, WoC Chariots, Glade Riders, ICK, realm knights...all strongly preferred by competitive players over infantry.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
@The OP:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Cavalry is a choice because armies that can take them usually have very low point core. So it's a way of getting your core tax out of the way and having some fast, high armor units--that don't do a whole lot. Silver Helms cost twice as much as the other core and can get 2+/6+ at M9.

But you don't see a lot of marauder cavalry because WoC has access to Chaos Warriors and such.

Foot warriors get exactly zero play in competitive Warhammer. Marauders have their place fighting warmachines. Dogs have their place as cheap chaff. Chariots are point-for-point one of the best core choices in the game (T5 3+ on a core model is just...argh...). But foot warriors are too slow, and have no synergy with the rest of the army. They're used as an expensive mage bunker and that's about it.

I really don't understand how people think that cavalry needs a boost. They're fast, resilient, and hard-hitting. Who needs steadfast when you're winning combats anyways? The only armies running lots of infantry as core are the ones who don't have any better options. Silverhelms, Dark Riders, WoC Chariots, Glade Riders, ICK, realm knights...all strongly preferred by competitive players over infantry.

However Bretonnia is the exception to this rule, as they really are the only Army that revolves around Cavalry in this game with infantry support, where as the other armies for the most part are the exact opposite. In that case, it is hard for cavalry to do anything, especially against units of Undead, Hordes, etc.

 John Rainbow wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
WHFB is the better game, better set of rules. Need a few adjustments at competitive play, but then works really well. Huge problem: entry barrier. Ridiculously prices, as usual, but you need so many more models than in 40k, it's not even funny.

I call untrue on this one. It is hugely army dependent as in 40k. Some have a low model count and others high numbers and therefore cost. It also depends on points level.

Far from it. 40k is solely based on army list, either you have a top tier list or you have no chance at winning. WHFB relies more on individual handling of an army. Even with a top tier list, a beginner will be swept from the board by a seasoned player (unless we're talking really lameduck lists, looking at you, Corner Castle). Sure, the game needs competitive adjustments, but its rules are widely superior to 7th 40k.

 Rommel44 wrote:
However Bretonnia is the exception to this rule, as they really are the only Army that revolves around Cavalry in this game with infantry support, where as the other armies for the most part are the exact opposite. In that case, it is hard for cavalry to do anything, especially against units of Undead, Hordes, etc.

Totally disagree. Bret lances are deep enough to punch through many infantry units in a couple of turns, and with character support and lance formation are very capable of grinding units down and winning subsequent rounds of combat. The truck is keeping them from getting counter-charged, but a savvy Bret player will know how to mitigate this, which is why the army requires a more experienced hand.

That and between heavens magic and trebuchets they actually have quite a ranged advantage over many armies. Comet will crush a good number of gunlines, while pegs and peg palies can dismantle the gunlines while the lances dance around and distract his main blocks away from them. Then after a few rounds of artillery pounding to soften the enemy up the lances charge in and pick apart whatever is left.

Undead are a problematic foe for them, since they don't care about deep lances breaking their steadfast, but we also tend to lack the punch to get through all that armour.


As for cav armies, I disagree there too. There are a good number of all-cav builds on the scene right now, or in the very least lists that are either light on combat troops or run none at all. The notion that infantry is supreme in 8th edition is just flat out wrong. It has its place, but fast, durable units are the name of the current tournament scene.

Gearing up for so,ething awesome, trust me

It better be something as awesome as I would like it to be, I'm a little sad that it's been 40k release after 40k release because now it's rumored that the Grey Knights are next.

feth GK. We don't need Viking MAHREENS followed by silver MAHREENS. Dark Eldar are older & need an update more. I don't much care for 40k anymore but a DE release would get me to buy a rulebook.

 John Rainbow wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
WHFB is the better game, better set of rules. Need a few adjustments at competitive play, but then works really well. Huge problem: entry barrier. Ridiculously prices, as usual, but you need so many more models than in 40k, it's not even funny.

I call untrue on this one. It is hugely army dependent as in 40k. Some have a low model count and others high numbers and therefore cost. It also depends on points level.

Yeah mayne, Ogres need like, 10 models to play a 1000 point game.

Yeah technically can't they just buy the battalion and 1 character.

I thought this was par for the course these days? GW has always pushed its 40K franchise harder then WFB because in this day and age of video games popular with the young'uns, Noble Space Marines are an easy sell.

And being a devotee to the Chaos Gods, I also hate steadfast. No way men-at-arms will hold the line against my WoC that just butchered 20 guys in return for 1 of their own. ¬¬