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'm at least looking forward to reading the new rulebook. I've not really played Fantasy since the mid 90's, so it's difficult for me to relay any real changes at the moment.

With the addition of real missions, I'll be curious if it some 40K influence further bleeds over: 40K- only Troops can hold objectives Fantasy- only Core choices? This seemingly minor rule tweak in 40K drastically changed how armies are constructed.

Minsc wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Manfred von Drakken wrote:Yeah, I figured that 'slots' would go away - having slots AND percentages seems a little over the top.

No, it doesn't.

Being able to field 9+ Specials(or 15+ characters in the case of Skaven and Gobbos) because you happen to get low cost ones is what's over the top.

Goblin heroes are WS4, S4, T4, I3, and Ld7. For many armies, if you removed a wound and one point from any other stat (weapon skill, initiative, toughness, or strength) from them people would be going "Oh hey, it's a rank & file". In some army's cases (Chaos Warriors, Daemons, Dwarves), they're still inferior with only the wound lost (if even only then).

A lvl 1 Warlock Engineer is 65 points. You can fit 7 of them into 2k. 33 of them if they don't take a level in magic(they're 15 points naked). Or give them Handguns and have 16 individual snipers running around.

Platuan4th wrote:

Minsc wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Manfred von Drakken wrote:Yeah, I figured that 'slots' would go away - having slots AND percentages seems a little over the top.

No, it doesn't.

Being able to field 9+ Specials(or 15+ characters in the case of Skaven and Gobbos) because you happen to get low cost ones is what's over the top.

Goblin heroes are WS4, S4, T4, I3, and Ld7. For many armies, if you removed a wound and one point from any other stat (weapon skill, initiative, toughness, or strength) from them people would be going "Oh hey, it's a rank & file". In some army's cases (Chaos Warriors, Daemons, Dwarves), they're still inferior with only the wound lost (if even only then).

A lvl 1 Warlock Engineer is 65 points. You can fit 7 of them into 2k. 33 of them if they don't take a level in magic(they're 15 points naked). Or give them Handguns and have 16 individual snipers running around.

"Oh god they everywhere take cover gurk..." final words of colonel von strumen

Platuan4th wrote:A lvl 1 Warlock Engineer is 65 points. You can fit 7 of them into 2k. 33 of them if they don't take a level in magic(they're 15 points naked). Or give them Handguns and have 16 individual snipers running around.

And what will the 33 naked Warlocks do? I can have 30+ Thunderers for that cost actually doing something.

7 lvl1 Warlocks (or 5 lvl1 with condenser) might be a problem. They would still be constrained by the total amount of PD you rolled for the turn since apparently wizards don't generate dice on their own anymore, meaning you could only fire off 3 or 4 of them.

His Master's Voice wrote:
7 lvl1 Warlocks (or 5 lvl1 with condenser) might be a problem. They would still be constrained by the total amount of PD you rolled for the turn since apparently wizards don't generate dice on their own anymore, meaning you could only fire off 3 or 4 of them.

Depends on which rumours are true. Some state that they still add dice (1 for lvls 1&2, 2 for 3&4).

Also, 33 naked WE are 33 individual models running around being generally annoying and doing things like blocking charge lanes and baiting Frenzy whilst Jezzails, globadiers, and other shooty elements lay into you.

I imagine the caps in the book will still exist but theyre simply going to add a new global cap.. GW doesnt like to have to tell everyone "ignore whatever is in the codex".. Generally army book trumps codex and FAQ trumps all.. Otherwise we're going to end up with some absurd scenario like the one listed above!

Well, if you want to throw away 500 points just to prove a point, be my guest. I'm still not convinced 33 warlocks running around doing nothing will have any impact on the game.

Well, it will increase the turn length as that's 33 more guys to move around, shoot or whatever.

If they remove the "no save" thing for stonethrowers, then that kills their effectiveness against a few armies... but for the most part is making little difference. Even if the "S5 is new starting point" thing is true and they only keep "Armor Piercing", they're still going to be causing an average of between 66%, 83%, and the full 100% against all but about three infantry units. It's one of the things that makes the direct hit cheesy, but it's not like the whole thing crumbles without it.

And sure 33 Warlocks running around will HMV: You'll now be facing a neutered Skaven list as it lacks a Bell, Furnace, Grey Seer, or pretty much any effective hero choice for either combat, buff, magic, or leadership purposes.

I could see getting rid of partials but keep the guessing otherwise artilary base armies will be ridiculously overpowered, which will lead to LM with as many terradons as possible, HE and WoC with calvary based armies. it'll make dwarves and empire just like tau.

I think having so many sorcerers would be very entertaining to watch.

Most of them would stand around doing nothing, as they wouldn't have any power dice. Occassionally someone down the line would blow up and take half his unit with him, including several warlocks (if they were in a unit).

It would be viable, but it wouldn't be very effective.

@Sarigar. Afaik it's any unit with a banner (presumably with a minimum number of models to have more than the enemy, if it is contested). Not just core units.

Another rumour that has been backed up by Avian:

Units need to have at least 2 complete ranks in order to negate enemy flank/rear.

I believe cavalry are going to 4 wide, and monstrous infantry are definitely going to 3.

His Master's Voice wrote:Well, if you want to throw away 500 points just to prove a point, be my guest. I'm still not convinced 33 warlocks running around doing nothing will have any impact on the game.

It will make Skaven even more annoying than they already are - and that's saying something!

Two full ranks for rank breaking?

Not cool, GW, not cool.

Karon wrote:Two full ranks for rank breaking?

Not cool, GW, not cool.

Hey, GW needs to sell models one way or another...

@Karon I see why you all would think that, I meant to say, for lack of a better term, more then likely instead of definite.

I dont like the 2 ranks to negate ranks

If the two ranks thing is true, then the 'hammer' part of warhammer will be true, at least as far as rules changes come. It appears that the game will be all infantry all the time. The point of Cav is to hit things in the flank and break them. Right now, only Empire Knights (Or Brets) are cheap enough to rank. Hopefully they don't make the rank breaking things so that Bret lances won't work.

This will make some ridden monsters also basically worthless. Not to mention that if they keep the rule about Fast Cav not being able to get ranks...They'll never get a flank.

I wonder how this will interact with the 'Stubborn if have more ranks' rumor...Will a non-rank-breaking unit in the flank be able to take away stubborn?

As for the no-guess thing, it doesn't really change the game. If you were good, you could do it pretty accurately anyways. What it does is remove all the arguments about overguessing.

skyth wrote:If the two ranks thing is true, then the 'hammer' part of warhammer will be true, at least as far as rules changes come. It appears that the game will be all infantry all the time. The point of Cav is to hit things in the flank and break them. Right now, only Empire Knights (Or Brets) are cheap enough to rank. Hopefully they don't make the rank breaking things so that Bret lances won't work.

Hey, Gobbos could break too. Not that it's much better, as it's either 8 models in one interpretation as a minimum or 12 models for the next (front + two full ranks).

skyth wrote:I wonder how this will interact with the 'Stubborn if have more ranks' rumor...Will a non-rank-breaking unit in the flank be able to take away stubborn?

I thought that rule was wider front when engaged from the front, not more ranks?

skyth wrote:As for the no-guess thing, it doesn't really change the game. If you were good, you could do it pretty accurately anyways. What it does is remove all the arguments about overguessing.

It also allows you to center a template dead on the center of a unit with 100% efficiency with about a 22% success rate.

Oh, and by the way: I checked the O&G book. There is no limit to dispel dice bonus from the Spirit Totem, only rank bonus. If "infinite rank bonus potential" comes to pass, well, can you dig 14 Dispel Dice from a Night Goblin unit with the BSB? Or, if you deploy right & large enough, potentially twenty?

The rumour for stubborn was only by having more ranks and only when charged in the front. So fast cav at least 8 models will be able to negate flanks and take away stubborn.

It seems that they want to reduce the amount of flanking by fast cav in general, as I know a lot of WoC players take 2x6 warhounds. So by joining them together they have a nice flanking unit for no extra cost, but only one unit unless they scavenge points elsewhere.

Grimstonefire wrote:The rumour for stubborn was only by having more ranks and only when charged in the front. So fast cav at least 8 models will be able to negate flanks and take away stubborn.

The rumor was 'only when charged in the front'. There was no requirement in the rumor about negating ranks to get the bonus Unless you are presenting a new rumor.

It seems that they want to reduce the amount of flanking by fast cav in general, as I know a lot of WoC players take 2x6 warhounds. So by joining them together they have a nice flanking unit for no extra cost, but only one unit unless they scavenge points elsewhere.

Which is a pity, as it takes away a good portion of how Cav is 'supposed' to be used. Btw, no WoC player worth thier salt charges hounds into a ranked up unit, even in the flank. The hounds will still lose and break and sometimes give enough CR from kills for the enemy to actually win the combat even if you have a ranked unit in the front. (Unless you want them to break the hounds...). The hounds are purely annoyance and redirecting/blocking units that will go after some soft targets (Warmachines, lone wizards, etc)

Btw Minsc, I was only talking about Cav originally, not fast Cav, as (especially with the Step up rule) fast Cav will take too many casaulties to make it worthwhile. That kinda rules out Goblins as an effective breaking force.

So basically, they want a game where there's no more strategy than two groups of block infantry walking at each other in a straight line and pounding away in a straight fight with buckets of dice?

No, thanks. I like strategy.

As opposed to lining up across from one another and shooting and magiking your opponent to death while uber powerful characters kill each other?

Doesn't sound any different to me.

If all you intend to do is walk toward your foe with blocks of infantry and not move those blocks of infantry so they are grabbing objectives (in the case of Core at least) you won't win very many games.

Fateweaver wrote:As opposed to lining up across from one another and shooting and magiking your opponent to death while uber powerful characters kill each other?

Doesn't sound any different to me.

If all you intend to do is walk toward your foe with blocks of infantry and not move those blocks of infantry so they are grabbing objectives (in the case of Core at least) you won't win very many games.

Oversimplification

You ignore all facts of flanking, cavalry, etc.

Yeah, I think that if this edition does bust, the people will push out a widely accepted 7.5 Edition, mixing 8th edition and 7th.

Karon wrote:Oversimplification

.

I find that comment hilarious coming from someone that has been making judgements based on partial rumours, to the point of concluding 8th sucks

Heres a tip... read the full ruleset... make some lists... play some games and then make judgement about it because at this point you and all of us dont know jack Shat about the 8th.

@Skyth

[*]If you are only engaged to the front and have more ranks than the opponent, you are Stubborn.

Imo the only way this could be read is that a flanking unit capable of denying rank bonus and (obviously) having equal or more ranks will take out stubborn as well.

Taking out the rank bonus with cavalry will be a lot more common than taking out stubborn.

Actually, the stubborn will be easier to take out. One model in the flank / rear cuts it out, but depending on the interpretation of the two-full-ranks thing eight-to-twelve will be needed to negate ranks.

Just from what I know this edition sounds like it could pull me INTO Fantasy.

Question I have to answer is what army I want to do.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:No, thanks. I like strategy.

The strategy of riding a heavy cav unit right up to my state troops and just auto-blowing them away and overrunning into my cannons?

Earn a flank charge, and you can blow away my block infantry just like you do now. use one of your own blocks to hold me there, then its even easier to blow me away with a flank charge.

My rank bonus wasn't helping me survive front charges from elite units before, this new stubborn rule might actually make infantry blocks.. gasp! useful!

NAVARRO wrote:

Karon wrote:Oversimplification

.

I find that comment hilarious coming from someone that has been making judgements based on partial rumours, to the point of concluding 8th sucks

Heres a tip... read the full ruleset... make some lists... play some games and then make judgement about it because at this point you and all of us dont know jack Shat about the 8th.

I've been making judgments off of RUMORS, yes, rumors.

I've just been saying when taking a rumor on its own, and having only that rumor, combined with some others, it does sound pretty terrible.

But that is based off of rumors, so that is the only thing that we can do.

If it really is "more ranks = stubborn" instead of "wider = stubborn", then I'm really not going to like this new edition (well, technically, I am). Why? My "21 Dispel Dice" Night Goblin Unit? Congrats, it's now also stubborn with a static CR of 23. It has 22 Ranks. You, likely, are going to have to fight through at least 18 (90 models) before it loses stubborn.

Don't get me wrong, with "wider front" you still need to kill a lot to get stubborn. But, in the very least, you're countering out the whole "I have fifty models five by ten I get stubborn and a static resolution of 11" problem by either forcing a static 11 w/0 stubborn or possibly a static of 7 or 8 with stubborn.

As for the "needing at least eight models in a cavalry unit (possibly 12) to get a flank is more tactical" - yeah, you need to plan more. But that's now getting into the absurd territory of planning how to get your blocky unit (possibly deeper than most infantry regiments fielded currently with a 150mm flank) past other factors to hit someone there.

Worse, if it is "rank bonus of two" and not "two ranks", that pretty much shafts fast cavalry. They lack saves, they often are only T3, and can't do any damage as is. With the fact that the enemy doesn't lose their rank bonus' either, it's essentially going to be "Enemy's static combat resolution + wounds v whatever wounds the fast cav can do". They won't even be effective for combination charges any more as they'll just be feeding wounds to the enemy instead of negating ranks.


EDIT: How to be a cheesy git in larger WHFB games in 8th Edition.

Step 1: Buy unit of Night Goblins 200 big, costs 600pts.
Step 2: Buy Orc Big Boss as BSB. Give Orc BSB Mork's Spirit Totem.
Step 3: Deploy Night Goblin unit five deep, 40 long.
Step 4: Deploy BSB in unit.
Step 5: Reform with a rotation - unit is now 40 deep, five long.
Step 6: Enjoy your +39 Dispel Dice.

And then watch as a Hochland Long Rifle kills the BSB...


Also, I'd bet that the O&G are on the short list to get a new army book so I wouldn't be surprised if that combo goes away pretty quickly.