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 think some people confuse tactics and skill. 7th ed was like chess in some ways - you *knew* that, if you sat >8" from a M4 unit, they could not charge you. That kind of perfect tactical certainly is *hardly* realistic - for example look at Total War, regarded as fairly accurate: that has variable ranges your troops can charge in.

What they try to represent, imperfectly (D6 system, IGO UGO, etc) is that chargnig into combat is *not* a fixed event with 100% probabilities associated with it - there is some variability. THis is the variable charge distance - 2D6 means you have slightly reduced the randomness (more results in the middle ranges of 7-11" from a base M4) but you have some representation of "real world" appearing.

Fantasy battlefields were open fields? Not in the various books I've read...they certainly used terrain.

As for units not being slowed down - well, they are. If you want to not take casualties, dont march. If you march, you have a chance that some of your unit will die / get lost / give up and go home which reduces your units effectiveness. Again, you have to use less than perfect information (variable casualties) to determine if the risk / reward is worth it.

Same as charging.

I *love* the new version, it stops fantasy being what it was in 7th - no point in static blocks as they were mainly liabilities (with rare exceptions), just take skirmishers / cav / monsters and returns it to a game where Infantry, even the ranked stuff, can play a part. Which is a *very* good thing.

Agamemnon2 wrote:This is the way most historical wargames do it, that and by having massive, ungainly battlefields.

So you aint played any historical games then...

Kroothawk wrote: 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.

So instead we have armies rushing across a cluttered battlefield and brawling with bucketloads of dice.

Did anyone else notice that chariots can now march, and have the swifstride special rule (M+3D6" charge and discard lowest dice) like flyers? Not only that, but they also get one stomp attack after each combat at always strike last initiative on the chariot's own strength?

Very, very nice.

reds8n wrote: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.

Man, step away from the hobby for a decade and look what happens! Glad to see he's done well.

zioN wrote:

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.

My Deamon Prince died. That should drastically reduce the amount of dice I can generate; instead, random interfered and gave me even more that I couldn't even use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Therion wrote:

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.

And still not break anybody because of steadfast...

And still not break anybody because of steadfast...

Yeah because you can really take 60+ casualties all over your battle line every phase. Wow, you're stubborn. Wow, you're out of models.

RiTides wrote: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.

The biggest imbalances in the rules - at least, the ones people gripe about - are all army book specific problems, such as the enite Daemons of Chaos army book. Instead of fixing one book to solve a problem ("How do we fix that damn Staff of Nurgle spam problem?") they rewrote the core rules to 'solve' it, instead ("Ooh! Let's make bound spells regular spells and screw everyone!").


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Therion wrote:

And still not break anybody because of steadfast...

Yeah because you can really take 60+ casualties all over your battle line every phase. Wow, you're stubborn. Wow, you're out of models.

The breath weapon is only once per game. And how often are you going to kill all 31 potential models? I'm no soldier, but if some giant mosnter is squishing all my buddies and we ain't hurting it, I'm not sticking around to get squished just because there's a bunch of us.

Therion- I didn't notice that about the chariots! That's good, as they definitely needed a boost to offest the fact that they can't break ranks anymore (at least for armies like tomb kings that are dependent on them).

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

RiTides wrote: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.

The biggest imbalances in the rules - at least, the ones people gripe about - are all army book specific problems, such as the enite Daemons of Chaos army book. Instead of fixing one book to solve a problem ("How do we fix that damn Staff of Nurgle spam problem?") they rewrote the core rules to 'solve' it, instead ("Ooh! Let's make bound spells regular spells and screw everyone!").

I don't know. Deamons was overpowered, but O&G, Ogres, and the like were underpowered, and nobody could really get away with using ranked infantry very much (OK, not nobody, but most armies. And if ranked infantry were used, they were usually of the elite variety... mass goblin armies excepted). I think the problem was inherent with the basic rules, and the later books just made that very, very painfully obvious.

Also, I'm probably only going to be using bound spells, as they come on my treemen. I don't mind using PD for them. They have a better chance of not being dispelled that way and keeps people from getting around the lower number of PD by just adding in a bunch of bound spells.

I know that change hurts some armies/units/wargear options, but overall I think it makes sense with the changes to magic. They had to change the whole magic phase, imho- it was getting out of hand, and if you weren't going magic heavy it just seemed pointless to have to take a "scroll caddy" in every list. Those days are gone now, and I'm not going to miss them one bit

RiTides, not sure if you noticed this, but: Apparently, unless it's another big-book / little-book error, Bound Spells not granted by a magic item aren't forgotten on a Miscast - they just cannot be casted again that player phase by the Wizard.

Im really likeing the one dispell scroll per army thing.

I always though it was dumb that you could take 4 scrolls for like 200 points.

Now you are actually going to have to tactically think before you just say "scroll".

ShivanAngel wrote:Im really likeing the one dispell scroll per army thing.

I always though it was dumb that you could take 4 scrolls for like 200 points.

Now you are actually going to have to tactically think before you just say "scroll".

I'm not as fond of the change, but if you asked me about four years back I probably would be.

What has changed? Spell casting. Before, many of the "dangerous" spells went off on something like a 12 to 15 (at the highest!) and could - conceivably - be dispelled on roughly three to four dice. This was balanced out by the fact that casters had more dice than the defender had dispel (more often), and that it wasn't likely a spell would go off anyways (When you need a 7+ and you roll 2D6, it is only a 50% odd you'll get it).

Now? We're looking at spells that are going to be going off on values like 18, 20, 22, let alone the horror of stuff like specially tailored Tzeentch Lords who cast at something like +6 to all spells (Making a 3D6 average 15 to 18, with a range of 9 to 22 w/o irresistible force). The removal of automatic dispel failure on Double 1's is pretty much the only thing that balances this out, as you can now throw dice like crazy and not be screwed from your 6 5 and 4 because two 1's joined in with the roll.

I just feel that if they wanted to limit Scrolls, it might have been better if they saved it for a time when every army couldn't get at least one caster with +5 to their Casting Rolls.

Minsc wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:Im really likeing the one dispell scroll per army thing.

I always though it was dumb that you could take 4 scrolls for like 200 points.

Now you are actually going to have to tactically think before you just say "scroll".

I'm not as fond of the change, but if you asked me about four years back I probably would be.

What has changed? Spell casting. Before, many of the "dangerous" spells went off on something like a 12 to 15 (at the highest!) and could - conceivably - be dispelled on roughly three to four dice. This was balanced out by the fact that casters had more dice than the defender had dispel (more often), and that it wasn't likely a spell would go off anyways (When you need a 7+ and you roll 2D6, it is only a 50% odd you'll get it).

Now? We're looking at spells that are going to be going off on values like 18, 20, 22, let alone the horror of stuff like specially tailored Tzeentch Lords who cast at something like +6 to all spells (Making a 3D6 average 15 to 18, with a range of 9 to 22 w/o irresistible force). The removal of automatic dispel failure on Double 1's is pretty much the only thing that balances this out, as you can now throw dice like crazy and not be screwed from your 6 5 and 4 because two 1's joined in with the roll.

I just feel that if they wanted to limit Scrolls, it might have been better if they saved it for a time when every army couldn't get at least one caster with +5 to their Casting Rolls.

Im pretty sure the miscast table balances this out. Throwing 4 dice at a spell you have a huge chance of miscasting, and the table is harsh. sure the spell goes off, but the risk to the caster is massive.

The thing is, for a modest roll you don't have to throw 4 dice at a spell. With even a +4 to your roll you only have to throw 2 or 3 dice at a spell. The chances of a miscast haven't changed, just the penalties. And the rewards for successfully casting spells are so much more than before. I don't know as magic has been de-emphasized so much as changed. The eight lores are now so potentially devastating that the risk is maybe not bad enough. We'll just have to see how it plays out, though I admit I am not sorry to see the 15-20PD armies go the way of the dodo.

Durzod wrote:The thing is, for a modest roll you don't have to throw 4 dice at a spell. With even a +4 to your roll you only have to throw 2 or 3 dice at a spell. The chances of a miscast haven't changed, just the penalties. And the rewards for successfully casting spells are so much more than before. I don't know as magic has been de-emphasized so much as changed. The eight lores are now so potentially devastating that the risk is maybe not bad enough. We'll just have to see how it plays out, though I admit I am not sorry to see the 15-20PD armies go the way of the dodo.

For the upgrades spells that cast on a 20 plus you wont get them off unless you throw 4-5 dice at them

If you'd read carefully I said modest roll. I wasn't talking about boosted high end spells.

I just know pandemonium just got alot more fun, miscasting on any double should be funny

ShivanAngel wrote:For the upgrades spells that cast on a 20 plus you wont get them off unless you throw 4-5 dice at them

I may not have the book on hand, but I'm pretty positive most spells don't have an average cast requirement greater than 16+. Many of the spells going off on 20+ are the super-uber spells: You don't need them when you have something like the #6 Lore of Metal spell that's killing a third of a unit it targets right off the bat (or 1/6th if it's composed of multi-wound models) with no saves of any sort allowed.

Pointing at higher costing values isn't anywhere near as effective a "See? It's limited!" now as it was last edition. Last edition, if you didn't have any buff items a 12+ casting value meant it was pretty much restricted to Lord-level wizards alone (as a Level 2 could only manage it on the highest of average possibilities, and normally required above average). This edition, still without any buff items, that has changed to at least 15+ casting value for the same limitation (Lord only). And, actually, it has gone better for Hero levels as - while it's -1 to -3 compared to a Lord wizard - the miscast is being risked on a cheaper model, as well as the fact that you can throw enough dice with that level a Wizard to reach it on average (Exactly 50% of all castings by a Level 2 wizard on four dice will accomplish a casting of a 16+ casting, last edition the most you could get with a 50% success rate on a Level 2 was an eleven: A five casting value difference for the same wizard).

Recall once more: Last Edition, 12+ casting was risky for a Level 2 to go for even with all three dice and a +1 to cast (+1 bumping it to just possibly a 50% success rate). This edition, 16+ casting with no buff items = exact same odds, at one more die but in turn with an average of same-to-plus-two power dice for two Level Two spell casters (6-8 rolled for aveage) as opposed to last edition (2 pool, +2 for each Wizard), with no pool limitation for current casters and the chance for an even further +2 bonus in dice.

That example uses your four dice, but considering most spells that one can want without going into the uber are still casting on less than a 13+: the average a Level Two Wizard can roll with three dice. If one assumes their opponent had a Lord Wizard (more common now in less-than-3K point games now as it's not competing with a Combat Lord for slots), the average on 3D6 changes between a fourteen (level 3) and a fifteen (level 4). Heck, someone with just +1 to casting rolls (Magic Item in their list, special rules, etcetera) with a Lord-level wizard can manage Casting Values of eleven to thirteen on average with just two dice.

Miscasting is no more frequent this edition than last, and - while it is deadlier - it has the problem now of not only letting the spell still go off but being Irresistible Force to boot.

I feel that if there were any time to limit Dispel Scrolls, an edition with this many buffs to casting rolls would not be it.

Minsc wrote:RiTides, not sure if you noticed this, but: Apparently, unless it's another big-book / little-book error, Bound Spells not granted by a magic item aren't forgotten on a Miscast - they just cannot be casted again that player phase by the Wizard.

I didn't see this myself when I looked at the book, but I read it here, and I'm pretty much ecstatic (sp?) about it . It will basically make my treesinging risk-free (which kind of makes up for the fact that it's not nearly as powerful as before!) since I also think the miscast doesn't harm the user of a bound spell at all (although if it's purchased, they forget it for the whole game). Just not being able to cast again with that wizard in that phase is basically no penalty at all. Whew since that miscast table is nasty, and I'd hate to lose a treeman to it!

youbedead wrote:I just know pandemonium just got alot more fun, miscasting on any double should be funny

Pandemonium is likely to get an errata since miscasts don't exist anymore. Also, don't forget Teclis from the HE. Any double and it goes off with IF. Probably going to be errata'd since he's likely to kill himself every game as is.

youbedead wrote:I just know pandemonium just got alot more fun, miscasting on any double should be funny

I considered that also. However, they changed RIP spells. Now you can dispel them at any time in the phase instead of at the end. So first thing you do is dispel pandemonium, then you start casting.

Infreak wrote:

youbedead wrote:I just know pandemonium just got alot more fun, miscasting on any double should be funny

Pandemonium is likely to get an errata since miscasts don't exist anymore. Also, don't forget Teclis from the HE. Any double and it goes off with IF. Probably going to be errata'd since he's likely to kill himself every game as is.

Miscast table on the bottom of page 34. Miscasts discussed under the heading of 'Miscasts on the top of page 34'.

Pandemonium is a very fun spell now.

or the black tongue, or hell the hell cannon number three result where alll wizards miscast is just going to be hilarious.

youbedead wrote:or the black tongue, or hell the hell cannon number three result where alll wizards miscast is just going to be hilarious.

Especially with an Infernal Puppet to hand. Lost a huge unit of Temple guard to that in 7th. 3 misfires, 3 3's rolled. OUCH!

I'm suddenly very very interested in seeing how the WoC are going to do in the magic phase. I forgot that they have an item, spell and hellcannon which can all potentially cause miscasts. The risk of using magic suddenly got much much more risky.

Big P wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:This is the way most historical wargames do it, that and by having massive, ungainly battlefields.

So you aint played any historical games then...

A putdown that snide, arrogant and uninformative doesn't even deserve a proper response. Get bent. I don't have to prove my credentials to you or anyone here.

Infreak wrote:I'm suddenly very very interested in seeing how the WoC are going to do in the magic phase. I forgot that they have an item, spell and hellcannon which can all potentially cause miscasts. The risk of using magic suddenly got much much more risky.

Not as bad as 6th Edition: Hellshriek doesn't exist any more (for those who don't know what it is: Was a 55pt Mutation from Chronicles '04, allowed a Lord to make every Wizard on the table Miscast on time per / game).

I've played a lot of historical games.

I agree with Agamemnon2 that until modern times generals used to try and choose battlefields with an eye to the terrain, to use defensive features and to ensure clear space for deployment and movement of troops.

At the Battle of the Issus the Persians did both, by deploying behind a river, and preparing the ground in front of them for heavy chariot charges.

The other point about real life battlefields is that they do not have edges unless bounded by the sea, cliffs or some other impassable feature. Thus manoeuvring can take place all around the edges of the field.

Some battles took place over large amounts of space, sometimes with the result that bodies of troops got lost or were unable to arrive at the battle in time to take part.

These features are reflected in many historical rulesets by providing lots of clear space around the edge of the action, and giving terrain penalties to different troop types to encourage players to use their troops realistically.

After playing a few games its become pretty apparent that a huge strategy will be "throw lots of dice at the top level spell and hope for double 6s".. Since the top spells generally can kill entire units

Life magic is AMAZING x10.. My slaan killed something like 70-80 goblins over 2 turns, healed around 12 wounds worth of my models and provided huge toughness boosts.. I suggest taking the scroll that does a wound on a 5+ for every die the enemy wizard used to cast a spell!

Kilkrazy wrote:I've played a lot of historical games.

I agree with Agamemnon2 that until modern times generals used to try and choose battlefields with an eye to the terrain, to use defensive features and to ensure clear space for deployment and movement of troops.

At the Battle of the Issus the Persians did both, by deploying behind a river, and preparing the ground in front of them for heavy chariot charges.

The other point about real life battlefields is that they do not have edges unless bounded by the sea, cliffs or some other impassable feature. Thus manoeuvring can take place all around the edges of the field.

All the best historicals I've played in or seen have been massive multitable affairs that let you try bold encirclement moves without having to worry about hitting a table corner. Very hard to organize and stage, of course.