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.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Not at all. WHFB 8th is a very solid ruleset, that needs little work to be a viable and even competitive ruleset. I am happy that GW neglects WHFB so far.

I'm in agreement. I'm not saying that if GW touch WHFB again they'll ruin it but, at the moment, WHFB is a very balanced, enjoyable game and I'm very happy with the way it is. I'd be perfectly fine with them never releasing a 9th edition, although I will admit there are changes that could be made to improve the game.

Updating the books is, I guess, another matter, and it would be nice for them to speed up on that. That said, the releases, when they come, have always been strong and the recent edition change in 40k does partly explain why GW are releasing so many new books.

No, I have nothing against the slower releases. I think 40k is getting ground into complete waste by the hyped up release schedule and all the new DLC they've added to it.
I'd love a new Skaven book, mostly because I would like new magic with that cool extra effect everyone else gets from casting and remains-in-play spells. The rest of it, honestly, I'm fine with. Yes there are some useless units (Jezzails spring to mind) and yes it needs as many FAQ pages as the rest of the books combined and it still has glaring holes... but generally it's a very fun book.

Steadfast is the best thing to happen to WHFB since it started. No, it's not perfect. The comments on flanking to make it go away(with the restriction that it has to be with 2 ranks seems a good idea. I'd say 2 ranks for infantry but cavalry should be able to do it with just the one though. Cavalry is supposed to be very disruptive in the flank, that's how it was used for reals, so this would be a great way to represent that, and getting two ranks of cav isn't always possible while keeping it cost effective enough to be competitive.)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I still just don't like the idea of steadfast even if it's double the number of troops, as it still creates this arms race to create units that are large that I personally don't like.

No it doesn't. There are other ways to destroy those units if your enemy starts building big. It just makes his strategies more limited and you can outplay him with several small units running around his big block instead. Steadfast made the game a game of strategy.
Without steadfast the army with the biggest hero (Vampire Counts) was the winner by default. He could go anywhere he wanted. He'll charge your unit, no matter which it is, because he knows that next turn he'll be able to charge again, as he has destroyed it. There was literally no way to stop him for armies that couldn't build an equally strong hero.
That was an arms race. One most armies couldn't win. I know I'm biased, playing Skaven, but even my Wood Elf friend agrees that without Steadfast, this game would be markedly more boring. It would be what it was back in the day, instead of the very intelligent, very tactical game it is today.

I'm sorry. Anyone that says Steadfast is just an afterthought poorly thrown into the game is wrong, and honestly I think you would like 40k better. That's much more the "kit your biggest guy as much as you can"-game that you seem to want.
Steadfast is Fantasy.

 quickfuze wrote:
and clearly written by someone who has no concept of nor ever having been in actual combat.

First of all, you probably haven't been in a sword melee either, so I don't think any of us have the experience of actual medieval combat to draw from.
Second, I do believe that if 50 men were attacked by a single man, they would probably not waver and flee because he managed to kill 4 of them, and he would certainly not chop down all 46 if he caught up to them when they ran away. They would also probably not stand in ranks to fight this lone crazed hero, stepping up a few at a time in an orderly fashion like it's a Steven Seagal movie.. They would swamp him. So any discussion of what real combat is like is fairly moot.

You're probably also going to say that whoever invented chess has clearly never fought a peasant before as he can stab his pitchfork straight forward rather than just diagonally to the sides. It is, quite honestly, equally silly.

Heroes are still powerful in this game. I cannot hope to defeat the heroes of practically any army in Fantasy, because Skaven heroes are laughably bad. But now I can hold them for a while, letting them destroy some unimportant unit of mine. And that makes for a fun game, that allows other armies than just the ones that can do the most damage using the hardiest champion.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Slow releases doesn't mean better releases where GW is concerned. WFB still had crappy army books & models back when they were only releasing 1 or 2 a year and this isn't gonna change.

Compare the last two Fantasy releases to the last two 40K releases.

Why? 40K getting crappy releases doesn't make WFB immune from also getting crappy releases. Its the same company and the same people.

Did Fantasy not just get new Wood Elves codex and a hand full of new models that I thought was bad ass.

Fireraven wrote:
Did Fantasy not just get new Wood Elves codex and a hand full of new models that I thought was bad ass.

The models are generally fantastic on both sides, with just a few... questionable design choices. But even the weird designs are at least perfectly executed.

The new dwarf gyros were pretty bad. Making actual ships with a gyro propeller would have looked so much better. But they're still very well made models... I just don't think they fit the scheme.
Same thing goes for the new Space Wolf airships. I don't think they measure up to the pretty awesome models they've released lately, but they're still not terrible models.

Everything Wood Elves got was absolutely stunning, and so has most of the 40k range been lately.

The speed has absolutely affected the quality of things, but not the sculpts. They're all round pretty fantastic.

The main problem with Steadfast are...army books. As usual. Skaven slaves, for example, are undercosted / overpowered and therefore highly profit from it, add in the ridiculous LD 10 (re-rollable) due their army's USR.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Steadfast is a very well thought-out mechanism that simply requires a little tweak, such as being flanked by a unit of 2+ ranks results in the loss of Steadfast, or a monster or anything similar.

That would help a lot!

Do this, and tone done Magic a bit, and Shazam! WHFB 9th is ready to roll out!

Aye. To me, a good 9th only needs a few adjustments to magic and Steadfast and I'd even buy it.

 Purifier wrote:
*snippity snip*

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think steadfast is a blight upon Fantasy and 8th killed WHFB in my area (which had been going strong since about 5th ed) and in my observation the 2 big reasons are steadfast and random charge distances. I don't disagree with it in concept, massed cheap troops should have a counter to more elite troops, just not the sort of counter that steadfast creates.

I'll be honest, I love Warhammer 8th edition, I've been playing it very often since it's release and it's the edition that got me heavy into Warhammer Fantasy. There are problems with it, Steadfast can be silly and there are little problems here and there like the OVERPOWERED magic phase, but all in all it's a great game.

I am however very upset with the slow releases from GW as of late. We haven't had anything in months and it's been 40k release after 40k release which honestly can get very annoying. That being said though, there are many rumors about the end of August giving WHFB players something to look forward to. Don't get feint hearted, I am sure we will hear something by the beginning of next week.

How I feel about the whole "When will 9th come out" question:




Seriously I'd rather wait another 4-5 years for 9th to make sure it isn't rushed like 40k has been & it shows in the quality of 40k.

Rules like Steadfast and Step Up were needed or the game would go back to boring Herohammer. (I'm saying that and I play mostly elves with ASF).

However, I do believe Steadfast can be changed and it would be much better / would still require the unit to win combat to cause the break test. This also makes fear, terror and tactical play worth something.

Stubborn: This unit always has Steadfast and never receive negative combat related modifiers (Fear, Terror or Flank or Rear Charges). Lowering their Leadership stat does effect the unit normally.

Fear (-1 LD vs Enemy without Fear or Terror) while having a chance to lower weapon skill if the fear test is failed.
Terror (-2 LD vs enemy without Terror, -1 LD if they have Fear) while having a chance to lower weapon skill like Fear, and also an additional rule for Terror that isn't useless like it is now.

Flank -1 LD.
Rear -2 LD.

Cavalry: If they get the charge, they count as Stubborn during the first round of combat.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
How I feel about the whole "When will 9th come out" question:

Seriously I'd rather wait another 4-5 years for 9th to make sure it isn't rushed like 40k has been & it shows in the quality of 40k.

That video might be more fitting if I didn't think the correct allotted time in GW's mind is however long they think they can best milk it.

Though I think we are due for another edition.

1983
1984 (1 yr)
1987 (4 years)
1992 (5 years)
1996 (4 years)
2000 (4 years)
2006 (6 years)
2010 (4 years)

So it seems like we are coming up on time to have another edition, only 3rd and 6th edition lasted longer than 4 years.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The main problem with Steadfast are...army books. As usual. Skaven slaves, for example, are undercosted / overpowered and therefore highly profit from it, add in the ridiculous LD 10 (re-rollable) due their army's USR.

Yes, they most certainly are undercosted since they got Steadfast. Of course, they were useless in numbers before they got it. Only way to use them were in small units as bumps in the road, but even then, with charge range being so long, they didn't really slow anyone down... I guess they were more like slight misdirections in that you could force someone to charge slightly to the side. They tended to block your own units more than the enemy though.

They don't have LD10 from the USR alone though. Gotta be close to the Warlord too for that, as they only have 5Ld as base, giving them at most 8Ld if they stray from the host.
Obviously, you'll say "but they don't. They protect the bunker."

Yes, that's true, but that's because they have to. It reigns them in. It means you can't really trot off with your slaves unless you're willing to risk your flanks opening up when they're destroyed, and it means your huge blocks of slaves take up a lot of the space around your bunker that also contains your BSB, which means other units will have a hard time benefiting from the Lord/BSB bubble.

Tactics. We get something at the cost of something else. It's not all just plain overpowered.

But yes, raising their cost a little to reflect their usefulness with Steadfast would make sense. (sort of like how giving the long barrelled Jezzails that can only shoot if they are standing still and taking aim a better chance to hit than any old clanrat with a sling would make sense...)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So it seems like we are coming up on time to have another edition, only 3rd and 6th edition lasted longer than 4 years.

Especially with the recent 2 year rush job between editions of 40k.
That said, I think Fantasy's problems can be fixed with a FAQ while renewing the older Army Books instead. GW Seems to have this need to change a lot of things to justify the release of a new rulebook, no matter if they need changing or not.
Malifaux just released a new ruleset. They took their old rules and stream lined them based on all the experiences of people actually playing their game, instead of trying to rewrite the whole thing into a new game.

 Purifier wrote:


But yes, raising their cost a little to reflect their usefulness with Steadfast would make sense.

Aye, that was my point. In the current state, they are overpowered as they are too cheap for the immense defensive power they bring. Adding Instability or anything would be interesting as well.

Adding instability in exchange for steadfast would be nice. I mostly just hate the on/off nature of steadfast and also dislike that it discourages small elite units and small units in general.

I don't mind the idea that a lot of troops should get a bonus over a small amount of troops, I just think it should be graduated, so having +1 rank over your opponent confers a lesser reward than if you +4 ranks over your opponent. I feel that would better balance the value of taking a small unit which is either elite or contains a powerful killy character vs taking a large unit of nothing but bodies.

A unit with a lot of models should always have a large advantage over small elite units and Steadfast perfectly represents it. In a good game, smaller units should be able to negate said advantage, however. Steadfast being uncounterable is bad game design.

 Sigvatr wrote:
A unit with a lot of models should always have a large advantage over small elite units and Steadfast perfectly represents it. In a good game, smaller units should be able to negate said advantage, however. Steadfast being uncounterable is bad game design.

Pretty much this. As a WoC player I actually love the idea of Steadfast, I just wish there was something to counter it a little better. Definitely not an 'oversight', though. Just needs a little tweaking at most, if anything really.

Step Up was also the greatest thing ever. Sooooo much better than it used to be.

For the record, I as a Skaven player, felt I had a stronger book back in 7th.
When you failed a charge, you moved a lot further out of line than you do in 8th. So I'd just shove my units of 20 Slaves in your charge lane, flee, and then catch you in the flank, where I'd have 5-7 CR before anyone swung. It was a far more decisive and lethal approach than my current "pin you down and grind" strategy. Which, of course, is what the Skaven should be doing.

Also, just to be clear, Slaves are 2pts and are Ld2 base. Everyone always says "just make them 3pts" or "just make them Unstable".
But if you made them 3pts, now they're 1pt less than my Clanrats, which is basically a +1WS, light armour, +3Ld upgrade. So that doesn't make much sense.
And as to making them Unstable, that would literally make them more than twice as fragile. A unit of 18 Khornate Warriors would go from taking 3 combat phases (that's less than two turns, people) to chew through them to taking 2 phases, with some wiggle-room for bad rolls.
I know that the Warriors cost three to four times what the Slaves do, but it's also a unit that can actually actively win you the game. My Slaves can never do that. They just set up situations for my other units to do it. So, yeah, they should be more efficient at their job. Because their job isn't as useful.

I've just never seen a tournament won largely because of Steadfast. I see Ogres, Dark/High Elves, Warriors, and occasionally Orcs take the gold, because they crushed their opponent with superior troops (that, if they were steadfast, it never came up, because they actually won combats). I hear a lot of complaining, but I've never seen a situation where steadfast really won me the day. It buys me a turn or two to line up a counter. And if I don't have that counter at the ready, it just delays the inevitable.

With all that said, though, I'd be cool with a bigger benefit to the ol' flank charge.
Adding up ranks to subtract from break test modifiers and counting to make sure you've got double ranks...eh. It is cumbersome. It's not confusing. It's just tedious. More math = more time.

Now. Back to the actual topic: I'll just say this. 40k is a more popular game, overall. Right? So it's no surprise to me.

 Sigvatr wrote:
A unit with a lot of models should always have a large advantage over small elite units and Steadfast perfectly represents it. In a good game, smaller units should be able to negate said advantage, however. Steadfast being uncounterable is bad game design.

I disagree that it perfectly represents the advantage (or that the advantage should be "large" when it is as little as 1 extra rank of cowardly waist high goblins vs giant lizards bred for the sole purpose of war). Also when I say "small elite units", those units do often cost more than the large slabs of cheap troops, so no, I don't think the large slab should have big advantages.

I think steadfast over states the advantage of having as little as 1 rank more than your opponent. If you changed it and went to needing 2x the ranks, it would be better, but I still think far from ideal as then you'd sort of have the opposite problem where against 4 ranks of Saurus, 8 ranks of goblins is solid as a rock but then suddenly at 7 ranks they're heading for the hills.

I just think each additional rank should confer a gradually increasing bonus instead of an on/off switch of steadfast vs no steadfast. I agree flank charges should negate it, as flank/rear charges are the epitome of out maneuvering your opponent and just because you have smaller units doesn't mean you have more units if the troops are vastly more expensive.

I think steadfast over states the advantage of having as little as 1 rank more than your opponent. If you changed it and went to needing 2x the ranks, it would be better, but I still think far from ideal as then you'd sort of have the opposite problem where against 4 ranks of Saurus, 8 ranks of goblins is solid as a rock but then suddenly at 7 ranks they're heading for the hills.

I just think each additional rank should confer a gradually increasing bonus instead of an on/off switch of steadfast vs no steadfast. I agree flank charges should negate it, as flank/rear charges are the epitome of out maneuvering your opponent and just because you have smaller units doesn't mean you have more units if the troops are vastly more expensive.

The problem is, there will always have to be some "all or nothing rules" - otherwise the game will become unplayable. Even more counting of ranks, adding of modifiers, calculating of results and so on only make the gameplay slower and more tedious.

There are numerous in-game situations that doesn't simulate "real" situations well at all, but we accept them anyway because they strike a balance between "realism" (or rather: credibility) and playability. Maintaining strict ranks, taking turns to fight, moving fixed distances based on a fictive stat, rules like ASF and ASL, etc, etc - it's all a compromise and sometimes it doesn't really make sense.

At some point we need to accept that game will never be perfectly balanced; there are just too many variables involved, and balancing them all in a credible way would need an extreme amount of situational rules and calculations that are the opposite of most players' idea of fun.

Warpsolution wrote:
Also, just to be clear, Slaves are 2pts and are Ld2 base.

Oh yeah, Ld 2, not 5 like I said. They're Ld5 if they stray from the host. Now, an astute player would say "yes, but you can raise that to 8 by throwing a Ld 5 Engineer in the unit for 15 points."
And that's true, but that makes the slave unit markedly worse, and connects nicely with my next point:

Warpsolution wrote:
But if you made them 3pts, now they're 1pt less than my Clanrats, which is basically a +1WS, light armour, +3Ld upgrade. So that doesn't make much sense.

While I would agree with Warpsolution based on only the facts he presented, he is forgetting one of the major advantages to the slaves that should also be taken into account when calculating their strategic value, namely that we can fire in to the combat with the slaves.
This connects to my previous point in that if you try to raise your Ld using an engineer you lose this completely, as he is not expendable.

So while people rail against the rerollable Ld10 slaves, they have to realise what that means in terms of mobility. They're Ld 5 with their rank bonus if they are needed to take care of a side threat.

Also, there is a way to get rid of steadfast. Draw them in to a forest. (Yeah, I never said it was a very reliable tactic, but it is one that people tend to overlook.)

I'm still waiting for bloody plastic characters and a Waywatcher/Wardancer dual kit for Wood Elves.

Araloth alone was pointless. Should have just made him Finecast and then released a plastic lord/banner box.

Warhammer fantasy IS slow going. However, I wouldn't say the warhammer 40k models don't need updates. Besides, warhammer 40k grey knights are next then chaos daemons/daemons of chaos.

I can't stand the current edition of fantasy, personally. I know I'll sound like sour grapes, but the amount of times I've been crushed because my opponent rolls 12 power dice and I roll 2 is just agony. Regardless of how well I play, the game pivots too heavily on Winds of Magic.
Moreover, play in an uncomp'd environment, and watch things like Kairos Fateweaver delete entire armies that don't have access to the necessary tools to slay him, or watch Dwarves cannon away your monsters.

I want a full rewrite of Fantasy, and I want the big, nasty named characters put at 635pts or higher. Teclis got the nerf-bat, when they should've just bumped his points out of 2500pt games. Then there are armies like Lizardmen that have characters printed at 800pts. Why? There's no means by which you could use that character in a real game.

TL;DR: Magic/Named characters need a huge nerf, test or die spells need to be toned down dramatically, irresistible casts need to be gone, and cannons needs to scatter.

Ehm, most named characters are vastly overcosted. Skarsnik, for example, is so terribly overpriced, it's not even funny.

Litcheur wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
40k 7th was an utter mess with piss-poorly written rules. I am happy that GW neglects WHFB so far.

+1.

I'm a Bret player, I'd really like to see new kits, but I fear the price increases.

By the way, 8th ed is not a bad edition if you fix some rules:

- Premesuring: nope.

- Steadfast: Way too strong. Just use the WAB rules. I need twice as many minis if I want my unit to be steadfast, you can deny it by making my unit fight on two sides (with units that have at least 1 full rank), and if my unit is steadfast, it just recoil 1D6ps (if it can physically recoil, otherwise, it flees). Your unit may follow up, or you can choose not to follow.

- Charge: Too much randomness. Our house rule is 2xM+D3-2 ps. The formula sounds complicated, but it's just the good old 2xM, and a D3 with "minus" (one), "zero" and "plus" (one).
Hey, GW, you could sell extra dice with that rule!

- Canons : Scatter D3-2 ps (using the same dice as above). You'll almost never miss a dragon, but you won't hit that single infantry character (but the next one on the left or the right) 33% of the time, and you'll miss a pegasus 25% of the time.

I'm a bret player too, and I don't mind steadfast. Helps that lance formation can happily ruin it though (Behold! 15 guys! 5 ranks!)

See, what people forget about pre steadfast and random charges is that cavalry were monstrously effective line breakers. As in, they would almost always get the charge and were capable of merrily breaking a brick of rank and file and running them down in about 1 round of combat. Combined with the crazy OP heroes of the time and you had problems.

Nowadays that doesn't tend to happen. Deathstar units comprised of something gribbly like white lions are unpleasant (especially for us brets, KOTR tend to get pasted by high initiative troops), but magic can and frequently does punish those who have a single unit make up 1/3 of an armies points.

Agree with the consensus that cannons are stupid this edition too. I dont actually mind how hard they hit (it's a freaking cannon) but they are far too accurate.

I am liking this version and I am getting caught up with painting all the figures I have. New version would only distract us. So use the time to but painted armies on the table instead of non painted half assembled armies.

The visual of WFB is starting to look good again as everyone is working on what they have instead of stand-ins for a new army they will never paint and possibly never buy.

If recent 40k releases are any indication, the less attention WHFB gets the better it will be for the game.

Warhammer is getting a normal release schedule. 40k is getting an accelerated release schedule. 40k sells more models, we all know this. Fantasy isn't going anywhere.

I don't see what the issue is. 9th edition isn't coming until 2015, maybe even 2016 (I can wait). Plenty of time to finish the last 3 books and whatever else is being planned.