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.

sebster wrote:

Omegus wrote:

I disagree on D6 being less random, even given the smaller deviation.

What? How can you do that?

That makes exactly as much sense as saying 'I disagree on me being shorter, even though you're taller than I am'.

2d6 gives a nice bell curve, so you have more reliable expected results. With the D6, much like running in 40K, it's way too easy to just roll a 1 and be screwed.

It's just as likely to roll a 2, 3 or 4 on 2D6 as it is to roll a 1 on a D6, rolling the former would make give you a result at least 3 below the average, whereas rolling the 1 on the D6 puts you only 2.5 below the average.

Right, it's no less random. More numbers doesn't mean more random. It means more numbers. A (balanced) zillion sided dice is just as random as a balanced flipping of a coin. What you can say is you like greater degree of variation based on each throw. Like I remember playing Loremaster paper and pen RPG back in the 80's and it had chart after chart after chart to consult. Roll once, get bumped to another chart, roll again, bounced to another. That had a ton of variation. I think the first time I took my character out, someone rolled some crazy triple chart and I died instantly. The more numbers you have, the more potential results you need to supply, otherwise, there's no reason not to use D6. So if you're using D100, if someone rolls 100, it needs to be one badass result, otherwise, why not make it a 6 on a D6 and save yourself some work filling out what a 97 means and a 33? Look at the miscast table, which is one of the few charts of 2D6, the results vary tremendously. If they didn't, you could D3 it.

Grey Templar wrote:2d6 would be a horrible idea for fantesy, considering the amounts of dice we roll currently.


D6 base with 2D6 for certain tests is the best method currently.


2d6 base is good for a small scale game like warmachine, but when you can have upwards of a hundred(or even several hundred) models that you need to roll for the single D6 is the only practical way to go.

You must have missed most of the posts you're apparently replying to.

We're not talking using 2D6 to determine everything. The sheer volume of attacks provides enough of a distribution of results that it doesn't matter.

We're talking about charge ranges. I feel 2x movement + D6" as suggested wouldn't work as well (hurray for cavalry clearing the board with a 24" charge!) as the current movement + 2d6".

8th edition haters are overwhelmingly players of armies (Daemons, and to some degree Vamps and a few others) who don't auto-win every time they put down a tournament list any more. These are supplemented by players of armies (Brets, Wood Elves, etc) who don't really do much winning at all any more in competitive settings. In other words, people got used to one thing and now another thing is required, and they're pouting.

I only started the game in 7th so I can't speak to earlier editions, but 8th fixed all the most egregious abuses I saw in 7th, and the newest army books (beastmen, tomb kings, greenskins) aren't re-breaking the game (I pass over the Skaven book, which is broken, although not as bad as daemons used to be). I think the trend of fantasy is extremely positive unless you were really a big fan of 20 PD daemon lists, raise-spam vamps, and so on, in which case I don't care about your opinion because you wear your rectum as a hat.

I agree with Malleus. I've gotten hammered by brets in 8th, but he has placed in a lot of tourney's. Exception, not the rule.

Malleus wrote:8th edition haters are overwhelmingly players of armies (Daemons, and to some degree Vamps and a few others) who don't auto-win every time they put down a tournament list any more. These are supplemented by players of armies (Brets, Wood Elves, etc) who don't really do much winning at all any more in competitive settings. In other words, people got used to one thing and now another thing is required, and they're pouting.

I only started the game in 7th so I can't speak to earlier editions, but 8th fixed all the most egregious abuses I saw in 7th, and the newest army books (beastmen, tomb kings, greenskins) aren't re-breaking the game (I pass over the Skaven book, which is broken, although not as bad as daemons used to be). I think the trend of fantasy is extremely positive unless you were really a big fan of 20 PD daemon lists, raise-spam vamps, and so on, in which case I don't care about your opinion because you wear your rectum as a hat.

In combination with 8th edition, I absolutely HATE the new TK book, for reasons I will post at length when I've written them up. For now, I dislike it sufficiently that I regret having spent $40 to buy it and am seriously considering selling my army. And at this point my opinion of 8th edition in general isn't much more favorable, for reasons that many have already stated.

See, there's a difference in some of those Malleus: In some, it's people whinging because they can't LIVE TO WIN any more. For others... they're looking at armies they put hundreds of dollars down on, and aren't looking at wins even though they don't play competitively. There's a difference between "I play to win, this sucks!" and "I expect to at least win a game every now and then." People of the latter group should not be clumped into the former.

The armies got vastly more balanced in 8th. If there are X people complaining because "I expect to win at least a game now and then," in 8th, there must have been 5X in 7th.

The full list of armies armies are massively more competitive with each other overall. I dare anyone to deny that.

DukeRustfield wrote:The armies got vastly more balanced in 8th. If there are X people complaining because "I expect to win at least a game now and then," in 8th, there must have been 5X in 7th.

The full list of armies armies are massively more competitive with each other overall. I dare anyone to deny that.

Wood Elves? Bretonnians?

They are still competitive, yes... but of the "I need to buy a hundred or two worth of stuff to get back to winning games without Ranald's blessing" competitive.

Minsc wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:The armies got vastly more balanced in 8th. If there are X people complaining because "I expect to win at least a game now and then," in 8th, there must have been 5X in 7th.

The full list of armies armies are massively more competitive with each other overall. I dare anyone to deny that.

Wood Elves? Bretonnians?

They are still competitive, yes... but of the "I need to buy a hundred or two worth of stuff to get back to winning games without Ranald's blessing" competitive.

Your point on wood elves and brets is well taken. They got slapped hard and they probably lose 90% or more of competitive games.

However, I beg to remind you of the 'Ardboyz results the last time they were held under 7th. They were, as I recall: Daemons, Brets, Daemons, Daemons, Daemons, Daemons in the first six placement slots. The balance of 8th isn't perfect (and let's all take a moment to raise an appropriate digit in the direction of HPAs), but it's far, far better than 7th was at any time after the daemon book.

My best friend is a bret player who's starting a wood elf army (I tried to talk him out of it) and I feel his pain. I hope they get new books shortly, and I'm glad greenskins and ogres and tomb kings (previously bad armies) are getting them as well. I would hope, though, that even people who play those armies would be willing to take a broader view (and then go buy a WoC army :-D)

Omegus wrote:We're talking about charge ranges. I feel 2x movement + D6" as suggested wouldn't work as well (hurray for cavalry clearing the board with a 24" charge!) as the current movement + 2d6".

Only if the enemy placed their troops on the max of their deployment, directly opposite the enemy cavalry, and only if that cavalry had a 9" move... and even then only 1/6 of the time would they get that charge off. The rest of the time they'd be left with a second turn charge (same as we get now).

Meanwhile, you didn't comment on my previous post, where I pointed out that "I disagree on D6 being less random, even given the smaller deviation" is nonsense.

Malleus wrote: The balance of 8th isn't perfect (and let's all take a moment to raise an appropriate digit in the direction of HPAs), but it's far, far better than 7th was at any time after the daemon book.

I must be doing something wrong. Mine tends to die a horrible, horrible death before it really accomplishes much.

Now, Hydras...

To be honest, it begs the question whether Warhammer Fantasy was ever meant to be a fair, balanced system for competitive play. I would argue not, there are far too many armies with far too many variables. If you look at some of the newer game systems that GW-haters like to to point out as being more balanced (Warmachine, I'm looking at you), these are more balanced because four armies were created with balance in mind. Dystopian Wars as well at that. But I don't think GW has ever gone for balanced, and gone more for fun. What rules can we put in that are awesome to pull off and that won't be quite over the top, while being consistent with this army's background? Considering how many armies WHFB has, it's a wonder they're so evenly matched as they are right now, there are no armies which are certainly rubbish or any which are better than anything else (unlike 40k). Sure, 8th has made magic more powerful, but that's awesome, as I advocate mass destruction wherever it exists. Let me throw 9 dice for this spell.... irresistable force? Yes!!! Now let's see how my wizard blows up. Magic is also much more unpredictable and stops people from crafting magic-death-specific armies. Overall, I like 8th edition. It's fun to play. There will always be some whiners who complain they got hit by dwellers or something, to which I say: Use Dwellers back! There's no use complaining about being killed by the best choices if you don't use the best choices back. If you wanna play fluff armies or avoid whatever you deign 'game-killers', WHFB is your own game, nobody's stopping you from leaving out whatever bits you don't like and adding something else in. Like take Dwellers, say you make a house rule saying they do get armour saves at -1 or something. If you don't have fun with it, cut it out! But don't sulk and say you're waiting for 9th, whenever the hell that'll be....

It's more of a dice rolling contest. Old ed was tactical.

40k is now the superior game. 5th ed vs 7th ed was close, but 8th ed meant that 40k leapt ahead.

The spells are highly over powered. You now *need* to have magic even more than before.

Boss Salvage ran an apparently successful list that had only a pair of level 2 engineers and another list that had only a single level 2 plague priest.

Magic can be powerful, I'm not denying that. There are definitely some spells that seem out of balance (Dwellers usually gets pointed out here...). But saying that you "Need" magic is patently wrong.

Also suggesting that 8th ed. is not at all tactical is just disingenuous at best. The tactics may have shifted a bit from "How can I make sure I can charge without being charged first" to "how can I position myself such that I can cope with a failed charge", or a whole plethora of other things, but there are still tactics to the game.

I seem to be the opposite again. I stopped playing 40k when I started in on 8th edition. Haven't really looked back either.

8th WHFB is far more tactical than 5th 40k, simply because of the charge arcs and the fact you charge before anything else rather than charge at the last phase. It requires more thinking ahead.
And about magic, yes, the spells are now more powerful, but its now doubtful whether you'll have sufficient power dice to cast some of the top tier spells. Before, you could gear lists simply towards the collecting of power dice, and it was cheesy and not that fun to play against. The advent of unpredictable power dice means you can't bet on it being there to kill the entire opposing army, but the threat of more powerful spells means that you can't risk not taking magical defence. This does kinda force you to be more balanced, or at least take anti-magic items if you're gonna go for combat heroes.
The percentage system as well has eradicated lists that took 2 minimal core units, then maxed out points on elites and heroes on dragons. It forces you to take a proportionate amount of lords and heroes as opposed to one mega killy boss. Sure, as an elf player with many expensive special characters, I might miss the slot system in that regard, but it makes more sense. A big dude on a dragon would accompany a large army because that's what makes more sense. I began collecting my DE in 7th, and had a 2k list (theory only) that had two special characters and my heroes easily went over 700 points, with 8th, I lost that, but it's better this way. Empire have massively gained of course, every unit could have a captain in it if they so wanted.
A point my pal has pointed out is how monsters seem to have been put on the back foot, since steadfast means no leadership modifiers and now rolls of 6 auto wound, a few ranks of spearmen should see any monster off confortably, Hydras and Hellpits aside... his argument is that there's no real place for them anymore, but I would argue that a good general would take this into consideration and not charge a monster into such a tarpit (at least not on its own). But I think 8th is a good, fun edition and quite fair. We'll see what Storm of Magic has for us...

[quote=GoldenKaos The percentage system as well has eradicated lists that took 2 minimal core units, then maxed out points on elites and heroes on dragons.

Phototoxin wrote:It's more of a dice rolling contest. Old ed was tactical.

40k is now the superior game. 5th ed vs 7th ed was close, but 8th ed meant that 40k leapt ahead.

The spells are highly over powered. You now *need* to have magic even more than before.

That's ridiculous, and you know it.

Both games are very simple, and anyone should be capable of understanding the basics of tactical gameplay after a half dozen games at most. If anything, that number should be halved with 40K. At most one could argue that both games are equally simple, but it's more that 40K is a game with a similarly crude match up mechanic to WHFB, but lacking the manouvering system in which players try to set up the best match ups.

The only way I think anyone could conclude 40K has a greater level of tactical depth is if they assume their ability to win consistently means the game must be rewarding some inherent tactical ability they have. Right now 40K is the better option for building very powerful armies and consistently beating people without the inclination or wallet for building similarly powerful lists, because it simply has greater power imbalance from codex to codex (nothing like WHFB in late 7th ed, but far worse than WHFB now in 8th).

It's ultimately pretty sad that people confuse that kind of play with tactical ability.

8th edition is the funnest fantasy edition I've played thus far. I started 6th ed. I completely quite in 7th to go play 40k. If there is no skill involved in 8th then I don't know why the same people are still on the top tables and winning and getting top spots in all the GT's. If your "waiting for 9th" because of what a small vocal jaded players are saying then you'll inevitably be "waiting for 10th -11th -12th" as well.

sebster wrote:That's ridiculous, and you know it.

Both games are very simple, and anyone should be capable of understanding the basics of tactical gameplay after a half dozen games at most. If anything, that number should be halved with 40K. At most one could argue that both games are equally simple, but it's more that 40K is a game with a similarly crude match up mechanic to WHFB, but lacking the manouvering system in which players try to set up the best match ups.

The only way I think anyone could conclude 40K has a greater level of tactical depth is if they assume their ability to win consistently means the game must be rewarding some inherent tactical ability they have. Right now 40K is the better option for building very powerful armies and consistently beating people without the inclination or wallet for building similarly powerful lists, because it simply has greater power imbalance from codex to codex (nothing like WHFB in late 7th ed, but far worse than WHFB now in 8th).

It's ultimately pretty sad that people confuse that kind of play with tactical ability.

In addition to the movement, just the modifier system for ranged attacks in place of the "everything gets a 4+ super save" of 40K makes WFB more tactical, for whatever that's worth. The the terrain introduces another very random element that has to be worked around, and you have another point in WFB's court. But yes, at the end of the day, both games are extremely elementary.

I expect to win because I'm good. 8th ed nerfed the bajeezus out of my army and now I have to play in a way that is unfluffy (and requires a significant monetary investment) to be competative. My other army was not negatively affected by 8th ed (DE) but I longed for a new challenge, so I started Dwarves.

As far as answering Dwellers with Dwellers is concerned, i think this is a fine idea. God knows the only way to beat demons was to play them. Or Iron Warriors from 3rd ed 40k. Maybe I don't want to have to play a particular army in order to handle one spell that everyone has access to but only one army can beat. Maybe the problem is with the spell?

Similarly Demons. The issue wasn't with 7th ed, it was with the demons book. Was fear overpowered? Sure. But that doesn't explain why VC got targeted retribution for their power level (arguably less than Demons) but demons were untouched.

Nagashek wrote:I expect to win because I'm good.

Then go play chess.

Seriously, there are better and cheaper games out there that directly reward skillful play. WHFB, like 40K, is a beer and pretzels game that's always had simple strategies and a healthy whack of luck.

If you really don't like the idea that a game can be turned on its head by a player rolling well enough to get off a powerful spell, then pick something else to play.

Nagashek wrote:I expect to win because I'm good. 8th ed nerfed the bajeezus out of my army and now I have to play in a way that is unfluffy (and requires a significant monetary investment) to be competative.

Sorry to say this, but... In Before people try telling you you play "Live to win!", as that seems to be the typical counter response to "Hundreds of dollars invalidated."

I still think the biggest problem with 8th edition versus 9th is not the rules, though, but the nigh six-plus month dry spell after it was released in regard to fantasy stuff.

NEWSFLASH!!! You can still play 7th edition games if you so choose. Just because there's a new edition out doesn't mean you HAVE to play it.

Now if you are a tourny player you have another issue. But if you are just playing with you and your buddies there is absolutely NOTHING stopping you from using an older ruleset. Hell I still play 2nd edition D&D over 4th with my buddies.


On another note it must be stated that GW clearly and openly states that both 40k and WHFB are meant to be played for FUN first, not competition. It's unreasonable to assume that each and every army is going to be balanced with each new edition.


I also hear a lot of hatred geared at the randomness of 8th now. (i.e.-charge ranges, magic, etc.) but no one really mentions the fact that you can measure at any point in the game for any reason.


At the end of the day, it's a game of DICE which clearly translates to a game of CHANCE. I've seen the 'weakest' armies decimate the 'strongest' armies purely on lucky/unlucky dice rolls. All the strategy in the world can't save you from randomness.