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.

mikhaila wrote:If you make terrain to restrictive on movement, the game bogs down, units don't move, and we get to play a skirmish and monster game. If you want both terrain AND blocks of troops, you have to have some way for troops to move and engage.

GW have chosen their own way on this because they feel, perhaps quite rightly, that tables with lots of terrain look more impressive, given the scale of the game (and it can't hurt that they're now deeply in the plastic terrain business). The traditional approach has been to make terrain bog troops down, and simply have very little of it per game, assuming generals would choose open battlefields precisely because they need the space to maneuver. This is the way most historical wargames do it, that and by having massive, ungainly battlefields.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Impulse spending is not a sustainable business model.

Umm. You better not tell the supermarkets or they'll remove the magazine, book and candy stands from around their checkouts. Oh no, wait. They're probably know better than to listen to you on this one.

$20/£13.5 little rulebook for both 40k and WFB right at the cash register. Every employee has to ask every customer if they need a mini-rulebook each time they buy something.

Impulse buy + suggestive upsell = lots of sales.

It's a sales tactic but not a sales model. Consider the exact item. If you wish to play Warhammer, Warmachine, 40k or whatever, you need the rulebook it's an about essential. What you're on about is additional stuff, like a Chocolate Bar. I go to a Supermarket to buy my weeks shopping, that is what I am after. The choccie bars etc right by the till are not where the Supermarket makes it's profit, but it doesn't hurt. Totally different intent behind the two styles.

Hey Frozenwastes,
is that a Buy One Get One Free?

Yea I kinda agree. Rulers, paintbrushes, maybe some terrain = impulse buys. Core ruleset? Not so much.

Mini rulebooks could definitley be impulse buys to get some cross system buying going on. Say you play 40k and someone suggests grabbing a WFB minirulebook just to check it out. I think even people who already own the big rulebook might grab one just because it's easier to carry.

People want the mini rulebook outside of the starter box set. Right now, eBay sellers are the only ones filling that demand. GW could do it directly.

Also, it'd be a good cross-promotional give away. Spend over $150/£100 pounds on 40k or WFB and the staff just slips a mini rulebook for the other game into your bag.

They could also do a "build your own starter" promotion where you buy a battalion (or equivilent) and a hero/lord and get the mini rulebook thrown in.

It can be so much more than something that you can only get from buying the starter or from some eBay guy.

Needs more than that though. Not selling you rules, selling you a setting, the background, the whole shebang. No way could an impulse provide anywhere near what is really required.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Big P wrote:So the new edition means buying lots more models for my existing armies?

Oh now thats surprising...

Yes and no. The rules now enable larger units, giving them distinct benefits (more attackers, or stubborn) and this is certainly encouraged, but still far from compulsory.

I do believe you're being optimistic there. The metagame will almost certainly favor players who will buy more in order to get those benefits, so if you want to be competitive, you'll need them.

I see this comment or variations of it in alot of threads and don't understand it. All the new rules do is favor players that have large collections and want to field them in larger battles. A 1500pt(or any size for that matter) game is still a 1500pt game, with the same amount of models. If a player wanted to adjust(metagame) their army to max out a units benefits, they will have to sacrifice something else in the army, maybe a warmachine, a character or some such.

Indeedy. Barring the possibility of list rejigging, existing armies are just as valid now as they ever were.

Just played a game in the GW store using 8th edition rules, very interesting, and good, the rumours got pretty much everything right, and the biggest change is in how much terrian affects a game, 10 gutter runners and an assiassin with poison, close to a tower of khorne got hatred and frenzy, with some lucky rolls, tore right through a slann and 20 temple guard

doubled wrote:Just played a game in the GW store using 8th edition rules, very interesting, and good, the rumours got pretty much everything right, and the biggest change is in how much terrian affects a game, 10 gutter runners and an assiassin with poison, close to a tower of khorne got hatred and frenzy, with some lucky rolls, tore right through a slann and 20 temple guard

I can see the tactical decisions that went into this. Dicehammer here we come!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

mikhaila wrote:If you make terrain to restrictive on movement, the game bogs down, units don't move, and we get to play a skirmish and monster game. If you want both terrain AND blocks of troops, you have to have some way for troops to move and engage.

GW have chosen their own way on this because they feel, perhaps quite rightly, that tables with lots of terrain look more impressive, given the scale of the game (and it can't hurt that they're now deeply in the plastic terrain business). The traditional approach has been to make terrain bog troops down, and simply have very little of it per game, assuming generals would choose open battlefields precisely because they need the space to maneuver. This is the way most historical wargames do it, that and by having massive, ungainly battlefields.

And yet 40k manages to have OODLES of terrain that slows down troops that AREN'T marching in serried ranks.
The reason historical games have terrain that slows down troops is because that's how is was. If you look at maps of historical battlefields, you don't see lots of cool looking terrain where the troops were moving, because generals knew what they were doing. The concept of avenues of approach is lost when terrain is just Eye Candy.
What I used to love about the game was the way that historical tactics translated well to the tabletop. Guess I'll have to play Napoleonics to get that rush (By the way, not all historical games require massive ungainly battlefields. Just the large showpiece games...kind like the 6000 points on a side Warhammer showpiece games.), hopefully only until 9th ed.

Durzod wrote:

doubled wrote:Just played a game in the GW store using 8th edition rules, very interesting, and good, the rumours got pretty much everything right, and the biggest change is in how much terrian affects a game, 10 gutter runners and an assiassin with poison, close to a tower of khorne got hatred and frenzy, with some lucky rolls, tore right through a slann and 20 temple guard

I can see the tactical decisions that went into this. Dicehammer here we come!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

mikhaila wrote:If you make terrain to restrictive on movement, the game bogs down, units don't move, and we get to play a skirmish and monster game. If you want both terrain AND blocks of troops, you have to have some way for troops to move and engage.

GW have chosen their own way on this because they feel, perhaps quite rightly, that tables with lots of terrain look more impressive, given the scale of the game (and it can't hurt that they're now deeply in the plastic terrain business). The traditional approach has been to make terrain bog troops down, and simply have very little of it per game, assuming generals would choose open battlefields precisely because they need the space to maneuver. This is the way most historical wargames do it, that and by having massive, ungainly battlefields.

And yet 40k manages to have OODLES of terrain that slows down troops that AREN'T marching in serried ranks.
The reason historical games have terrain that slows down troops is because that's how is was. If you look at maps of historical battlefields, you don't see lots of cool looking terrain where the troops were moving, because generals knew what they were doing. The concept of avenues of approach is lost when terrain is just Eye Candy.
What I used to love about the game was the way that historical tactics translated well to the tabletop. Guess I'll have to play Napoleonics to get that rush (By the way, not all historical games require massive ungainly battlefields. Just the large showpiece games...kind like the 6000 points on a side Warhammer showpiece games.), hopefully only until 9th ed.

Really? What historical tactics are you talking about? The ones that left the game long ago? There is a game called warhammer ancients btw that may be better suited to "realistic combat" instead of say a game that is based in high fantasy! Thats one thing I'll never understand. Ive been playing fantasy for a very long time and I havent seen much evidence of this "historical tactics" thing people keep talking about

7th was all about huge monsters, war machines and psychology destroying all your enemies.. I see absolutely ZERO evidence of such historical tactics in ANY of the top armies of fantasy. Kairos + horror spam != historical combat.. Nor doom wheel + abom with two bells in a huge block of skaven... Hmm dont remember war hydras either backed up by a ring of hotek and insane unit of blackguard!

5th was all about hero hammer and 7th all about "big stuff".. Rank and file troops were pathetic for most armies because they were slow (IE got charged and destroyed) or were just weak in general. The only good ones were ones with insane combinations due to magic banners (generally).. Maybe if everyone only played Empire, Orks, bretonnians and tomb kings youd get some awesome historical combat going.. Or the empire player will just bring 2 steam tanks and a war altar

Personally, I think the changes to dealing with terrain are good and will make the game more fun. My wood elves can go treesinging-heavy and basically shut down standard blocks by moving forests into their way under 7th ed rules.

They can't march in the forest, and can only go half-speed, meaning most blocks are only moving 2" or 2.5" straight ahead. Once they enter, I can use the same spells to cause damage to them. Even without that, they move at half speed until the last rank has cleared the forest, which can honestly take the whole game.

It's not fun, and pretty much just plain silly, imho. And that's coming from someone who it benefits . I'll be glad to see the new terrain rules come into affect so we can actually put some terrain on the table without compromising the game.

You mean all these years you never made a flank attack? Or protected your own flanks? Or managed to engage a portion of the enemy's force with a greater proportion of yours? I could go on, but why bother? In your mind Cheese will out.
Just because a unit has a fantasy look doesn't mean it can't be used according to the principles of war. Or don't you believe a good player can overcone a cheesy list?

My opinion (and I think that of many nay-sayers) is, and likely always will be, that the game has substituted randomness for skill.

Luck determines who can charge; skill has been removed (sure, you can do the odds, but that's not a skill - it's basic math).

Luck determines the effectiveness of magic. I played a game over the weekend, and had 6 levels of Tzeentch. On one turn, I had six spells and four dice; the next, two spells (one useless) and nine dice. The magic pahse has been reduced to one steaming pile of luck to 'balance' things out.

Step up removes the tactical advantage of charging, ie killing the enemy before they can attack. Sure, my Swordsmen can swing before Dwarves, but where they could maybe kill one or two to minimize casualties, now they're going to stare down the full weight of their ire - where's the advantage to charging now?

And so many drawbacks can be 'tested out' of: Frenzy, march blocking... The game now offers no incentive to be a crafty general. It's been reduced to two armies running at each other full tilt, two players rolling buckets of dice, and the dice gods are the only authority in who wins (reminds me of little league, in the way that they play and not care who wins*).

My objection is that GW threw in more random and called it 'balance'. The game has really become too random for my taste.

I may play 8E to satisfy my urges (and maybe even grow to be okay with it), but I seriously think I'm going to write my own system while I count the days until 9E.

..

*I know that this might tag me as a WAAC player, but think about: Why do we play the game? We PLAY TO WIN THE GAME! I am fully capable of enjoying a good game of Warhammer when played by two skillful opponents, and congrats if I get outplayed. The rare game that I get truly frustrated is when the dice go WAY beyond 'statistical anomaly'. The random factor is going to have much more impact on the outcome of games, and I prefer to lose by being outplayed rather than crappy luck.

Manfred von Drakken wrote

Luck determines who can charge; skill has been removed (sure, you can do the odds, but that's not a skill - it's basic math).

What is so skillful about earlier editions with fixed charge ranges? You can charge 8", I can charge 10" so if I sit 9" away from you I get the charge and you don't - that's basic math too! Yes you needed to judge that distance by eye, but that's hardly a terrific feat of skill to anyone who has played wargames for more than a few weeks.

Do you think that generals in the past said to their troops 'they're in plate armour so they can only charge 80 yards up the field, you're not so stand about 85 yards from them and we'll win this one lads!'? Of course not.

If you want to charge an enemy you need to be close enough to them so that you aren't too out of breath to fight when you get there but that's hardly a specific distance, sometimes you'll charge further due to really minor effects (a cooling breeze, have you just gulped down some water, the ground is smoother than you thought, etc).

The skill comes in assessing the risk and that's what this ruleset simulates. You can dismiss it as 'basic math' but isn't that the whole basis behind statistically driven combat resolution and therefore the choices that you make in army design?

so, I've read most of this thread...

I have a question: as someone who has never seen nor played a game of WHFB, would this be a good ruleset to start playing in?

I've been curious about Fantasy for quite some time now, actually, and having realized that a new rule book was due I've kind of been biding my time waiting to see what transpired...so far all I have to go on is one person, who also didn't play Fantasy, describing to me the different phases during a player turn...regardless, it sounds interesting & I've been thinking, based on what I've heard, that it may be fun to get into & that now may as well be as good a time as any, since I'd be learning from scratch like a lot of folks.

oh, one other thing, how likely is it that Mat Ward &/or Robin Cruddace will write Fantasy army books? that may affect my decision, ha!

If you're interested in WHFB this is as good an edition as any. Since it's the current edition, you'll be learning as much as the rest of us.
If your wallet can stand it, I'd say go ahead and get the big new book. There's a lot of non-rules material in there that'll increase your enjoyment of the hobby (as well as building upper body strength) and can help you decide which army you like the look/feel of.
A few of us have our issues with some aspects of this edition, but that's due to our history with past editions and/or other systems (anything that lets me throw lead and push dice...). It's really a good game, otherwise would we be so passionate about it?
As for MW, rumor has him having a big hand in the 8th ed rules. Maybe that's why GW doesn't list an author.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
What is so skillful about earlier editions with fixed charge ranges? You can charge 8", I can charge 10" so if I sit 9" away from you I get the charge and you don't - that's basic math too! Yes you needed to judge that distance by eye, but that's hardly a terrific feat of skill to anyone who has played wargames for more than a few weeks.

Of course it takes skill to judge that 1" interval, no one said it took a huge amount of it, we are talking about pushing toy soldiers around a table after all...

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
Do you think that generals in the past said to their troops 'they're in plate armour so they can only charge 80 yards up the field, you're not so stand about 85 yards from them and we'll win this one lads!'? Of course not.

If you want to charge an enemy you need to be close enough to them so that you aren't too out of breath to fight when you get there but that's hardly a specific distance, sometimes you'll charge further due to really minor effects (a cooling breeze, have you just gulped down some water, the ground is smoother than you thought, etc).

Actually, that is mostly a fixed distance and generals did say that (or something to that effect), go read some accounts about the napoleonic wars and the way that cavalry charges where made at the time. Humans don't run 100 yards at full speed one moment and 200 the next just because of a gust of wind...

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
The skill comes in assessing the risk and that's what this ruleset simulates. You can dismiss it as 'basic math' but isn't that the whole basis behind statistically driven combat resolution and therefore the choices that you make in army design?

You can assess the risk all you like, fact is that luck will be a much bigger factor in a Fantasy battle in 8th edition than it ever was in previous ones and alot of us are understandably (IMO), upset about it.

Manfred von Drakken wrote:My opinion (and I think that of many nay-sayers) is, and likely always will be, that the game has substituted randomness for skill.
Luck determines the effectiveness of magic. I played a game over the weekend, and had 6 levels of Tzeentch. On one turn, I had six spells and four dice; the next, two spells (one useless) and nine dice. The magic pahse has been reduced to one steaming pile of luck to 'balance' things out.

How can you have a different amount of spells each turn? And if this is Tzeentch daemons, you can do loads to maximise your power dice to 10-12 with bluescribes and several power vortexes.

RiTides wrote:Personally, I think the changes to dealing with terrain are good and will make the game more fun. My wood elves can go treesinging-heavy and basically shut down standard blocks by moving forests into their way under 7th ed rules.

They can't march in the forest, and can only go half-speed, meaning most blocks are only moving 2" or 2.5" straight ahead. Once they enter, I can use the same spells to cause damage to them. Even without that, they move at half speed until the last rank has cleared the forest, which can honestly take the whole game.

It's not fun, and pretty much just plain silly, imho. And that's coming from someone who it benefits . I'll be glad to see the new terrain rules come into affect so we can actually put some terrain on the table without compromising the game.

Feels like I am going at half speed in the woods on this thread and can't keep up.

Difference is RiTides is that the internal logic that WE's can make the forests move is fine, it is within the bounds of possibilty within the Old World if not ours.
Now, if I have misunderstood I apologize, but the effect on terrain has no effect on movement, which doesn't make sense, even within the fantasy world. I don't fully understand the point of adding all the terrain if it has no effect on movement and cover. Other than to look pretty and boost GW sales
Having sid that, I do like the addition of lots of terrain because it does look good, and I can understand why they want to streamline the game.

Like I said I have probably got the terrain rules completely wrong anyway!

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=11200010a

Gotta admire the enthusiasm at least.

Mr. Vetock returned to the USA a while back, I hope he contineus to contribute stuff to both the game and setting for a long time.

reds8n wrote:http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=11200010a

Gotta admire the enthusiasm at least.

Mr. Vetock returned to the USA a while back, I hope he contineus to contribute stuff to both the game and setting for a long time.

Yup the fella seems extremelly exited Not much info in there though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Funny thing, he reminded of me something with his style of comments and after thinking a bit I discovered what...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH7qq7OjJO8&feature=related

Durzod wrote:As for MW, rumor has him having a big hand in the 8th ed rules. Maybe that's why GW doesn't list an author.

Actually, each chapter of the book lists a separate author/authors by name. And the rule section lists Mat Ward as the sole author.
And the book shows him playing a game with Jervis, ending with both drinking beer in Bugman's.

@radical bob: I think it is a very good moment to start. The book is really inspiring, the new templates (preorder the ranging set and/or dice, almost sold out!) are very imaginative. Whatever the rules in detail, the terrain interaction is very much better and the scenarios make the game much more flexible and fun, instead of just both armies running into the middle of an empty board and brawling. The rules will certainly change the power balance of the armies. Experience will tell, if Chaos Daemons are now playable in friendly games

They told me at the GW store that the new "special" terrain rules are optional, and you have to agree with your opponent before the game whether or not you'll play them.

So is this true or not?

I am not going to play those terrain rules either way, but I guess it would make a difference if it is an optional thing only.

I am curious about one thing, which has probably been addressed already but I guess I was too busy "QQing" about the ridiculous price of the rulebook. For my Dark Elves I was planning on taking a lord on a dragon and a sorceress, and maybe a couple of hydras (been thinking about either two hydras or a hydra and some bolt throwers). I saw someone post something about percentages earlier and I was wondering if a big expensive lord on dragon and a sorceress would even be possible in an army of 3k points or less.

I'm not all that "serious" about Fantasy, not like 40k anyway. If I do play Fantasy I'm more or less going to be pretty casual about it and just taking crap that looks cool, which is big stuff like dragons and monsters, obviously. But if they've toned that down and I can't realistically play that stuff anymore and have to field a bunch of boring spearmen blocks and little else (unless I play with a $1000+ army), then that'll definitely finish off whatever little interest I had. From what I've seen though it doesn't look good, IIRC someone posted earlier that in order to play with just one dragon you'd have to play a nearly 4000 point game and I just don't have the inclination to build a WHF army that damn big.

I saw someone post something about percentages earlier and I was wondering if a big expensive lord on dragon and a sorceress would even be possible in an army of 3k points or less.

In 2.25K you get to spend 562,5 points on lords, so you can get the Black Dragon. He costs about 535-545 points normally. You also get to spend 562,5 points on heroes, so you get the Sorceress and other heroes too. You're also allowed to spend 562,5 points on rare, so you can buy two Hydras and two RBTs.

IIRC in 3K the amount of how many identical choices you can bring doubles, so with the 750 points rare allotment you can get 4 Hydras.

But if they've toned that down

Far from it. A Hydra now attacks 7 times, handlers 6 times, breaths into combat 2D6 hits, and stomps into combat D6 hits. Yes, theoretically you can kill 31 of those 'boring spearmen' in one phase with one Hydra.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Feels like I am going at half speed in the woods on this thread and can't keep up.

Lol

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I don't fully understand the point of adding all the terrain if it has no effect on movement and cover. Other than to look pretty and boost GW sales

Unless I read it wrong when I got to check the rulebook, terrain definitely adds to cover. You can get a -1 or -2 to hit. That's huge! Sure, it's a little silly that it doesn't slow down units at all- I think perhaps a good compromise would have been to say that they cannot march. That's what's silly right now- they cannot march, and move half of their normal movement speed. I'm not sure how many people actually play this correctly, because it slows you down a lot. On the other hand, I can't recall if it slows down a charge or not. It just is a little too much, imho.

TBD- I have also heard (mikhaila mentioned it earlier in the thread I believe) that the "special" terrain effects/rules are optional. He didn't think they would be used in tournaments.

As to the skill- I never get why this comes up. Imho, it takes very little skill to make a "power gaming" list that is monster and calvary-heavy, and takes no blocks. Now, that's not as powerful... it doesn't mean the game will take less skill, it will take different skill. You can't take out the entire enemy army with a single monster. Imho, that will mean a little more skill will be involved overall.

I lost a game to skaven where basically my entire army was taken out by the HPA. The other player was good, but he didn't get to show his skill, because his monster just ate my army.

I'm very happy that a single monster can't break a block of troops now. Also, I like the pre-measuring- it takes away a lot of the gamesmanship from charge distances and the like. You get to premeasure, then roll for it. I think the whole talk of skill being toned down is rather silly- it's realistic for you to attempt a charge, and perhaps fall short. Now can you adapt to that? Just because everything doesn't always go "according to plan" doesn't mean that a game takes less skill... it actually makes it more realistic, imho.

Now terrain probably should slow units down, but I believe it does have the chance of injuring calvary / monsters, so that's something. And it makes sense- infantry can fluidly move around obstacles, while calvary riding over a fence or the like might get injured.

Anyway, I like the new rules, even with treesinging being less effective. With the move to more blocks, it would be unreal how deadly it would be if it stayed under the old rules. The reason it's not as effective now is simple- most people don't take a lot of blocks or at least, most of their points are in elite calvary/monster/etc units.

Last thought- I can't believe people are reminiscing about how things are now in 7th edition!?? Especially about it requiring "skill". I've played daemons and only killed 4 models in an entire game while being tabled. This past weekend I played O&G and only lost a handful of models myself, not even an entire unit. There's too much unbalance in the rules as they are now, they definitely needed an overhaul, and GW did it pretty darn well, imho. I don't like their company policies a lot of the time, but you've got to give credit where credit is due- I think they hit the nail on the head with this one.

reds8n wrote:http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=11200010a

Gotta admire the enthusiasm at least.

Mr. Vetock returned to the USA a while back, I hope he contineus to contribute stuff to both the game and setting for a long time.

Wow, Jeremy still works for GW? I remember working with him back in '97 during my stint at GW HQ, real nice guy.

I wish I had the disposable income I had in my younger days, I'd be all over the new rulebook. This really sounds like a fun new edition of the game and I hope to get the chance to play! I do agree that it would be nice if they could just sell the little rulebook directly, but I'll suffer with the wait and dealing with the joy that is EBay.

Indeed, he's been a member of the Design Studio for a few years now, wrote the Skaven army book amongst a few other bits and bobs.