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.

Anyone else excited for this?

My gaming group is watching closely..if they make the game a more balanced game we are all going to buy battalion boxes and jump in.

I get the impression that WHFB, unlike 40k, already is a fairly balanced game. You have to realise how hard it is to balance a game where not everyone has the exact same situation, but instead where everyone has an army based largely off of fluff.

With that in mind, WHFB looks like an amazingly balanced game to me.

What would you hope for to make it "more balanced"?

I have no specifics....but I hear GW makes games that are beer and pretzel games....and from talk on the forums, my local game store, and other blogs...GW is a game that is not and has never been balanced...more of a model company, great models, with some rules slapped on for cinematic fun.

Which is not a bad a thing....just not what me or my group is looking for. Each to their own.

You're not going to see it transformed from beer and pretzels to a true tactical simulation game with 2 pages of stats for each unit and you're calculating wind trajectory and bore size and the purity of the lead used in the muskets due to a supply shortage. True wargammers, historical wargammers, are a whole other breed.

They're bearded men in sweaters who smoke pipes. And they do so unironically. In fact they don't understand irony. Just iron. And how it was used most effectively in the American Civil War.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
You're not going to see it transformed from beer and pretzels to a true tactical simulation game with 2 pages of stats for each unit and you're calculating wind trajectory and bore size and the purity of the lead used in the muskets due to a supply shortage. True wargammers, historical wargammers, are a whole other breed.

They're bearded men in sweaters who smoke pipes. And they do so unironically. In fact they don't understand irony. Just iron. And how it was used most effectively in the American Civil War.

I feel this was a sarcastic response that was intended to do harm rather than to add to the conversation. Thanks.

I didn't say me or my group is looking for complications in the game.

This game is greatly balanced, to be honest I don't think theirs many other game system close in balance to fantasy





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Having played most of the popular game systems out their this would be my pick everytime

 DukeRustfield wrote:

They're bearded men in sweaters who smoke pipes. And they do so unironically. In fact they don't understand irony. Just iron. And how it was used most effectively in the American Civil War.

Well damn I need a beard and a pipe!!!

Any who WHFB is for the most part balanced out. However like with any game of it's size Armies will be less developed then others due to the rate army books come out. Now unlike 40K when a new WHFB book comes out it's not one book to rule them all. WHFB is an older game so the armies are more developed then 40K so when a new book comes out they don't always have a major overhaul to give players the experience the game developers intended. I feel 40K is starting to get there, but 40K is also a game that grew to big too fast IMO.

Sarcastic or not, I actually rather agree with Duke's comment. Games Workshop has their head buried firmly in the sand, and is entirely incapable of seeing and fixing the many readily apparent problems in their game. Never has this been more apparent than in the current 40K meta, where GW has jammed their fingers into their ears in terms of game balance with the cop-out that they're "just a miniature company" and "aren't concerned with Gamers."

...that said, WHFB is actually quite balanced as far as things go. There's a few substantially broken/overpowered builds (HE Alarielle-white lion-BOTWD star, Ogre Gutstar with Runemaw Banner, WoC flying circus list). However each of these is pretty boring to play, and you tend to see them in the hands of new players overcompensating for a lack of experience. Not to mention that these lists also have ways of dealing with them, and the meta simply shifts to compensate. Yeah it's practically impossible to get points out of a deathstar, but if you just chaff them to death you can effectively take them out of the game while picking off the rest of his army for points.

Otherwise the game is very well balanced. Certainly more balanced than 40K, which is why I made the switch a year and a half ago. You'll hear a LOAD of whining from old 7th edition fans offended by the changes, and some of those complaints are valid, but most people still playing WHFB today say that the game is deeper and more balanced than it's ever been. Even the so-called "bottom tier" armybooks can field competitive lists and get wins, they just tend to have more rock-paper-scissors problems than the "top tier" armies do. I know that facing certain Ogre/WoC builds with my TK is essentially an auto-lose, where I'm fighting tooth and nail for the tie, but against other armies and builds I'm still in competition.

No game involving dice is ever going to be truly competitive. You could have the best tactics in the world, and the dice could still screw you over. The good players just minimise the risk of the dicing doing just that.

WHFB is probably the most balanced of all GW's games. I won't go into the ins and outs of it, because there's a ton of threads on the issue, but, despite a few minor issues with the core rules, the game is balanced, as are most of the army books.

No game involving dice is ever going to be truly competitive.

Am rather sure that Dice is played with dice and is very competitive . People play it for money at least here.

Well I can't see why you consider it balanced, Beastmen and wood elves need serious buffs, while TK being unable to march and stand&shoot is really awful. On the other hand, some armies ahve ridiculously powerful and cheap items, like Banner of the world dragon, Ironhide Banner, Boook of Hoeth, not to mention how strong and unbeatable Daemons are.

Demons aren't unbeatable . a HE queen +BotWD counters them real nice.

Makumba wrote:
Demons aren't unbeatable . a HE queen +BotWD counters them real nice.

What if you don't want to play as flowery elf people?

Makumba wrote:
Demons aren't unbeatable . a HE queen +BotWD counters them real nice.

I just beat a Daemon army with a simple Empire list last week. Of course a hellblaster or 2 helped =P

 Wilytank wrote:
What if you don't want to play as flowery elf people?

Then pick one of the other 13 armies. They can all beat DoC as well.

Fantasy on the whole is extremely well balanced. The issues with Wood Elves, Dwarves, Brettonia stem from out-dated army books, NOT an unbalanced game system. It's almost impossible for this not to happen given how army book are released over the course of an edition, rather than as a package with the game-rules.

I'm just pointing out that an army being a hard counter to another army is useless information for people who don't play as the army with that hard counter.

Then I would assume you understand how your rebuttal is also useless. Makumba simply pointed out one example. Any army can counter daemons if built accordingly.

 Wilytank wrote:
I'm just pointing out that an army being a hard counter to another army is useless information for people who don't play as the army with that hard counter.

You can't use the reasoning of "I don't wanna so it doesn't count."
There is a way to counter it. Your personal preferences as to whether or not you want to play it doesn't make it any less so. What are you expecting, that whichever build you wanna do should be stomping every army? That's the anti-thesis of a balanced game.

 Wilytank wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Demons aren't unbeatable . a HE queen +BotWD counters them real nice.

What if you don't want to play as flowery elf people?

Seriously? Our own fething book counters us rather nicely...
Show me another army where my 500+ pts Lv4 General can be instantly killed any time your own magic phase rolls around. (and we don't even need to miscast first!)
Try playing against someone not running 'The List' or a 6-dicing Cacobomb or Nurgle in general and Daemons quickly become lower middle of the pack.

If anything, Daemons really need to have our current book properly finished, as right now it simply reads like a rough draft of the 40k version...
I love all of the really cool ideas & new directions we got, they're just so horribly implemented to the point a farting monkey with a pen jammed up his @$$ could have convulsed all over the page a better rules set than what Ward did.

As always Experiment, Daemons book is indeed garbage, we all agree more or less
But Daemons is still VERY strong when played competitively if random (a bit like Skaven, but Daemons are ugly on top of that, those shiny colors are hurting my rat eyes )

626 will never cry otherwise. You have whole threads where people posted, just a few days ago about how they took top or near top spots in tourneys using DoC and non-cheese tactics.

 Purifier wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
I'm just pointing out that an army being a hard counter to another army is useless information for people who don't play as the army with that hard counter.

You can't use the reasoning of "I don't wanna so it doesn't count."
There is a way to counter it. Your personal preferences as to whether or not you want to play it doesn't make it any less so. What are you expecting, that whichever build you wanna do should be stomping every army? That's the anti-thesis of a balanced game.

I may have misinterpreted makumba's post, but I was thinking of it more of a "Play this army or you'll lose every game you play. There's a mathhammer formula that proves it." THAT is not a balanced game.

Sorry for confusion.

TanKoL wrote:
As always Experiment, Daemons book is indeed garbage, we all agree more or less
But Daemons is still VERY strong when played competitively if random (a bit like Skaven, but Daemons are ugly on top of that, those shiny colors are hurting my rat eyes )

There's still a very vocal group that insists that DoC are the best book (or one of) of 8th edition simply because they can win tournaments. This idea that being hyper-competitive through a few OTT and/or undercosted abilities somehow equals a great product is laughable.

Skaven random is at least quite humorous to behold, especially those wonder weapons and their catastrophic successes.
Mind you, I find Skaven are almost as fethed-up as DoC in their own rules due to the poor wording... Congrats on having the largest FAQ which still barely scratches the surface of trying to make that poorly worded mess work!
(and we're not ugly, you guys are just too busy looking for the fast exit to appreciate true beauty!)



Anyways, the reliable rumor sources who still exist and haven't been pissed off entirely by the community in general are still saying 9th is a year out. This summer is supposedly going to see the rumored 6.5ed 40k 'updated' rulebook.
Honestly I'd prefer to wait until next year anyways... Get the Woodies, Brets, Dwarfs and hopefully Skaven or Beasties updated (or both!) and ensure that 9th is a good polish of 8th that fixes the glaring issues that currently exist.
Then hopefully (if rumors are to be believed and the next box set is Orcs vs. Empire), we can get an updated O&G's/Empire and then work on the problem children of the current set, namely;
- Daemons who simply need be properly finished instead of left half-arsed.
- Tomb Kings who are overcosted in general and either need to lose those laughable "Heavy Horsemen" or else give them the 3+ save.
- Warriors who have some seriously undercosted units/abilities and some internal balance issues.

Nothing else is really so badly borked as those 3, as the rest of the issues tend to stem from one or two obnoxious magic items (looking at you Hellheart & BotWD) and the odd special character (Alarielle & Epidemius are plain silly)

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Demons aren't unbeatable . a HE queen +BotWD counters them real nice.

What if you don't want to play as flowery elf people?

Seriously? Our own fething book counters us rather nicely...
Show me another army where my 500+ pts Lv4 General can be instantly killed any time your own magic phase rolls around. (and we don't even need to miscast first!)
Try playing against someone not running 'The List' or a 6-dicing Cacobomb or Nurgle in general and Daemons quickly become lower middle of the pack.

If anything, Daemons really need to have our current book properly finished, as right now it simply reads like a rough draft of the 40k version...
I love all of the really cool ideas & new directions we got, they're just so horribly implemented to the point a farting monkey with a pen jammed up his @$$ could have convulsed all over the page a better rules set than what Ward did.

Eh I disagree. I played at Waaaghpaca a few weeks ago. I took 12/100 with DOC(all TZ with 2 Khannon), and I took a solid loss to the Guy who won best general using DOC. He was 2 solo beasts, 2 khannon, LOC, 30 PB's with Herald bsb, 10 horrors and 3 drones. Their were two epi lists, that ended up in the middle with a caco list.