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.

So this is just a general rant/appreciation thread of the new rules.

What do all you guys think of them? What do you think is the best/worst change that came to Warhammer?

I personally am not a fan of the army composition being made up of percentages anymore (I can no longer field a dragon in any game under 2000pts :( lol). I also don't like the fact that if you wipe out the front rank of an enemy regiment the next rank can attack, it makes squishy armies that are already squishy more vulnerable IMHO.

What do all you guys think?

And yeah, I know its a bit delayed but so what? I'm bored at uni lol.

Taking units from the back as casualties helps squishy armies most. If some fodder troops fight powerful units and the strong units go first, they will completely wipe out the first ranks and the fodder won't be able to counter-attack.

Units are balanced on points, not number of troops. Some races only have Lords that are worth a few hundred points, while others have some that are worth like 650. Yes, they are both 1 unit, but obviously they aren't balanced. Playing very low point games using the # strategy you could easily have armies that were just about nothing but lords or war machines with just some token core units.

That is true. But for armies such as Brets and High Elves, who pretty much counted on they're charge wiping out first rank its a bit of a disadvantage I think as they will now get owned.

Kastellan - nope, as you hit the unit in the flank and suddenly no supporting attacks....

In actual games they dont get owned - brets just struggle as you dont lose steadfast for being flanked.

2nd best change is %age - it made no sense that a goblin hero was worth the same (in terms of how many you could have) as a chaos warrior hero. None at all. Big beasties such as dragons SHOULD only be for big games, and the %age system helps enforce that.

Best change overall is the variable charge distance. Absolutely. Stops the game being chess (I *know* you cannot charge if i go here, I *know* i can charge you in return the next turn) and makes it a lot more realistic and tactical. Being a khorne fan as well combats tend to be bloodier now, which is a goooood thing

Haha well yeah, Khorne would benefit from that.
I dunno, I just have a few gripes with the new rules, like the fact that its almost imposible to miss with artillery now lol.

I do like the changes to magic however

It is exactly as difficult to miss as it was before, once you have played for more than a couple of weeks. I dont even use artillery all that often (playing lizards...) yet I could still place one to within 1" from the other side of the table. Elementary trig and a very good ability to measure the world in 6" increments does that.

It's also, like LOS/range sniping from 4th ed 40k, an entirely irrelevant and unecessary skill to wargaming.

The new rules actually make fantasy a FUN GAME. It also means ranked infantry has a purpose, you cannot dominate a game with a single bloodthirster anymore, and so on.

But realistically a Bloodthirster would dominate haha :p
But I see what your saying.

But maybe not 2000 miles from the chaos gate.

Had an absolute blast on friday - 3vs3, 2500 points each. Skaven/DE/DE on my team (we played it beautifuly, we bickered and argued as our alliance failed turn 1 ) facing HE/Lizards/WE, with a Slaan general (not the highest leadership but WOULD be the general there... ), only made 4 turns but in 7th ed i doubt we would have managed 3.

I like the new rank rules and new charge rules makes it more fun then just waiting to to charge or be charged which is what last edition was i believe. I also like how they took so many benefits away from the charge, lots more fair.

How ever i do not like the rule where my Men-at-arms have a pole arm, shield, hand weapon, but have to use the pole arm!? Why? they would understand that in some situations its better to fight shield and sword than halberd. right?

Having Just finished a tournament with my dwarves, here are a few thoughts, phase-by-phase:

Movement:
-Random Charges: This nicely breaks up the game from 7th, were games were won on who would better guess that 1/4" for charges, as well as making cavalry less an "I WIN" button.
-Loss of Difficult Terrain: Terrain is now part of the game again! Woot!
-New Reform Rules: I like. Mush more Straight forewards. Either it takes your whole turn, or doesn't slow you at all.

Magic:
-Things that auto-generate dice are very powerful.
-Things that disassociate Miscast and Irresistable are verging on broken.

Shooting:
- True LOS + Loss of Guess Range = cannons sniping characters.
-Prevailance of Cover means that things that do not roll to hit can get rather crazy.

Melee:
-Charges no longer going first and Step-Up makes squishy, fast armies rather weaker than they were.
-Steadfast is rather poorly thought out. It works in situations where it's things like Goblins, but when it is Elves or Dwarves, winning by 1 rank...

Meta:
-% encourages MSU, while Horde and Steadfast encourage Large Units. This means large Infantry Units backed by elite harrassing units, instead of either or.

Overall, I like.

I like that summary

I think it sums it up nicely. TBH I'm yet to play an 8th edition game, as I can't find any time to fit one in coz I'm always at uni. But when I do I'll have to let everyone know what I think of it properly when I play a game